Get lead fields

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does a solid job: it explains that custom lead values are stored under a nested 'customFields' map and that the same structure must be used on create/update. It does not explicitly state that the call is read-only, but the tool name and lack of parameters make that reasonably clear.

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 two tight sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the nested customFields guidance earns its place by preventing a common create/update mistake.

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?

For a parameterless getter with no output schema, the description is complete: it names the response components, explains the nested structure, and connects that structure to related create/update tools. There are no missing inputs to clarify and no output schema to compensate for.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing the description needs to clarify about inputs. The description instead adds value by explaining the semantic structure of the returned fields, which is more useful than repeating parameter schema information.

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 states a specific verb and resource: retrieving lead field definitions, and it specifies the exact returned shape as { baseFields, customFields }. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like gambot_get_lead (retrieving a lead record) and gambot_get_contact_fields (different entity) without needing to open schemas.

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 usage by noting that custom field values must be passed the same way on create/update, which tells the agent when the returned definitions are relevant. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusion criteria.

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