List Custom Fields

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds the contextual detail that custom fields are scoped to contacts and a location, but does not disclose behavior like default location handling or pagination, which would be valuable additional 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence: 'Get all custom fields for contacts in a location.' Every word earns its place, and it avoids restating the title.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter), the rich annotations, and the absence of an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. It implies a list of custom fields but does not specify the response structure or pagination. Still, for a read-only, open-world list operation, it is adequately 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 schema has one parameter, locationId, with zero description coverage. The description mentions 'location' but does not explain the parameter's meaning, optionality, or format. Since the parameter is not required and the description fails to compensate for the schema gap, it leaves the agent uncertain about how and when to provide locationId.

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 a specific verb 'Get all' and clearly identifies the resource as 'custom fields for contacts in a location,' differentiating it from sibling list tools like ghl_list_pipelines. The scope 'for contacts' adds useful specificity.

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?

Usage is implied by the tool name and description—use to retrieve custom fields—but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives, nor any mention of exclusions or prerequisites. The description does not reference sibling tools or alternative methods.

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