list_deal_fields

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states that the tool lists fields. It does not disclose return format, read-only assurance, pagination, or any security/permission requirements. The verb 'List' implies a read operation, but no additional behavioral details are given.

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 sentence with no extraneous words, making it concise and easy to scan. It is appropriately front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple with zero parameters and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks context about the distinction between standard and per-pipeline fields, potential use cases, and why one might choose this over other deal-related tools, making it only minimally complete.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description has no parameters to document. According to the rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4, and the description's mention of 'standard fields and per-pipeline fields' adds a small amount of context about the output scope, though it does not affect parameter semantics.

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 verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'deal standard fields and per-pipeline fields,' making the tool's function clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like list_contact_fields, though the deal-specific scope provides implicit differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_deal_pipelines or list_contact_fields. There are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or recommended use cases, leaving the agent to infer the tool's role from its name alone.

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