list_custom_fields

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool overrides the server default from 10 to 100 and explains how to continue paginating via offset or _metadata.next. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but for a read-only list endpoint it provides meaningful runtime behavior beyond a generic 'lists records' line.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying distinct information: what the endpoint does, how the default limit behaves, and how to paginate. The action and route are front-loaded, and there is no filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 pageable list endpoint with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the essential operational details: default page size, how to detect remaining results via _metadata, and how to request the next page. It is sufficient for an agent to call and paginate correctly, though a brief note about the returned object shape would be extra credit.

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 100%, so the parameters are already documented. The description adds value by explaining the limit default behavior and clarifying when to use offset versus cursor-based pagination, which supplements the schema's static parameter definitions. It does not need to repeat the sort, label, or extraQuery descriptions.

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 uses the specific action 'List' against the resource 'custom fields' and appends the explicit route (GET /customFields), making the endpoint unambiguous. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like list_deal_custom_fields because it targets the general customFields resource.

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 gives clear context for the common use case: 'bulk requests are the common case here,' and then explains how to paginate through results. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the intended usage is clear enough for an agent to select this tool for general custom-field listing.

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