list_all_custom_field_values_2

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the HTTP method and endpoint path ('GET /accountCustomFieldData'), and reinforces safety ('Fetches data. Makes no changes.'), which is helpful beyond the annotations.

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: two short sentences plus a header. It front-loads key information (read-only, endpoint) with a visual emoji for quick recognition. No wasted words.

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 good annotations and a fully described input schema, the description is adequate but not complete. There is no output schema, and the description does not explain what the returned data structure looks like (e.g., array of objects with field/value pairs). A brief note on the response format would improve completeness.

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 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter meaning or usage details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 all custom field values and is read-only. However, it does not differentiate from the similarly named sibling 'list_all_custom_field_values' (presumably a different version or scope), leaving ambiguity.

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 emphasizes the tool is read-only ('Fetches data. Makes no changes'), which signals safe usage. But it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_all_custom_fields_meta' or other listing tools, and no when-not-to-use conditions.

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