swsd_describe_custom_fields

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds that it returns active fields by default, how to see retired ones, hints that the tenant may have 100+ fields (justifying pagination), and includes a note about write operations being supported in other tools. No contradictions.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and returns info. It then adds filtering guidance and a v2 note about writes. While the v2 note is slightly tangential, it is relevant for integration context and does not bloat the description too much.

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 description fully covers the tool's behavior: what it returns, how to filter, pagination implications, and even unsupported field types for writes in related tools. With an output schema present, the description completes the picture for an agent.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description adds extra meaning: it explains the purpose of scope/module filtering and the default for active_only. It also hints at pagination due to large tenant. The v2 note, while mostly about other tools, provides context for the custom_fields parameter used elsewhere.

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 lists the custom-field schema and enumerates the fields returned (id, name, type, required, scope, module, values, help_text). This differentiates it from all sibling tools, which focus on incidents, solutions, catalogs, etc.

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 explains when to use this tool (understanding tenant config, documenting integrations) and provides filtering advice (scope, module, active_only). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is sufficient for appropriate use.

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