swapcard_get_custom_fields

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. The description honestly indicates a read operation ('get') and mentions the optional filter, but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as authorization requirements, pagination, or whether the response contains only metadata. It is not misleading but is thin on behavioral context.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and then states the optional modifier. Every word is informative, with no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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 retrieval tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what is retrieved, the scope (event), and the optional filter. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, though it could mention response format or error conditions.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the context for both parameters: 'for an event' clarifies eventId, and 'optionally filtered by target entity type' clarifies target. This adds meaningful semantic context beyond the raw schema, though it could be more explicit about the allowed target values.

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 retrieves all custom field definitions for an event with an optional filter by target entity type. The verb 'get' and resource 'custom field definitions' make the purpose unambiguous, and it is differentiated from sibling tools that create, update, or delete custom fields.

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 usage is implied by the description: it is the read operation for custom field definitions, distinct from create/update/delete siblings. However, no explicit guidance is given on when to choose this over alternatives like get_select_field_options, nor any exclusions.

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