fields_list

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, and the description adds real context: it discloses scope guarantees (complex fields, nested fields, fields split across runs, simple fields, text boxes) and a computed output ('whether the result is stale'). It doesn't cover performance, ordering, or error behavior, but for a read-only list this is meaningful added detail.

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?

Two tight sentences with the resource front-loaded and no filler. The parenthetical enumerations are dense but each earns its place by clarifying coverage.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the returned attributes including the computed staleness flag. Combined with a fully-covered parameter schema and read-only annotation, it is nearly complete; only usage routing is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented. The description reinforces 'by story' and gives field-type examples (TOC, ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM, CITATION) that align with the type filter, but adds no syntax or defaults beyond what the schema states.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('list every field of the document') and enumerates what is returned (address, instruction code, type, result text, staleness). It distinguishes itself from the sibling fields_update by describing a read/dump, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious alternative fields_update. The usage is only implied by the word 'list', so an agent must infer the context itself.

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