discover_form_fields

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the local caching behavior (1 hour), the force_refresh option to bypass cache, and the fact that results are org-specific. It does not cover error cases or side effects, but for a read-only discovery tool, these key behavioral traits are well covered.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with an introductory sentence, a returns statement, a cache note, and an Args section. Every sentence adds value; no fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, parameter semantics, caching behavior, and output summary. The presence of an output schema means return details are already defined elsewhere. No critical information is missing for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: entity_type with a list of allowed values, and force_refresh with its cache-bypassing effect. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Discover') and resource ('form-field definitions for an entity type'). It distinguishes itself from sibling manage_* tools as a read-only discovery operation, and lists the exact output (fields with name, label, type, required, choices).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use the tool—whenever you need the configured form fields for an entity type—and provides clear context by enumerating valid entity types. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or mention alternative tools (e.g., clear_field_cache for cache invalidation), so it misses the top tier for usage guidelines.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.