list_all_custom_field_values

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds minimal context ('Fetches data. Makes no changes.') which is consistent but does not disclose additional behaviors like rate limits or result set size. No contradiction.

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 extremely concise: three short lines with an emoji indicator, bold READ-ONLY label, and clear statement of operation. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Despite good annotations and schema, the description does not explain what the response contains (e.g., each custom field value's structure) or warn about potential large datasets. It omits pagination details beyond schema, making it somewhat incomplete for a listing tool with nested parameters.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters with meanings. The description adds no extra parameter information, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 'List all custom field values' and explicitly labels it as READ-ONLY with the HTTP method GET. It distinguishes from siblings like 'retrieve_a_custom_field_value' (singular) and 'list_all_custom_field_values_2' (variant) by its scope and naming.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_all_custom_field_values_2' or 'retrieve_a_custom_field_value'. The description lacks context for selecting it over siblings, such as pagination behavior or performance considerations.

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