reach_listContactFieldsV1

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool returns UUIDs for updating contacts and that choice fields include options, which informs the agent about the response structure. It does not mention potential errors or permissions, but the read-only nature is implied by the verb 'Get'.

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 concise sentences, the first clearly stating the purpose and the second providing valuable context about usage and return values. Every sentence contributes useful information with no fluff.

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 simple list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and how to interpret the returned data. It could mention if there are any limitations such as only custom fields or no pagination, but the scope is clear.

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 schema has a description for profileUuid ('Profile uuid parameter') which is generic, and the description adds only that fields are defined in a profile. This provides some context but does not fully explain the parameter format or validation. According to the rubric, high schema coverage gives a baseline of 3, and the description adds minimal extra meaning.

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 a specific action: 'Get the custom contact fields defined in a profile.' It identifies the resource (custom contact fields) and scope (profile), distinguishing it from sibling tools like listContacts or createContactField.

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 provides clear context by explaining that the returned UUIDs are used with the contact update endpoint and that choice fields list available options. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, though the context implies it.

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