list_all_custom_fields_meta

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

The annotations already include readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well-covered. The description adds basic confirmation ('Fetches data. Makes no changes') and the endpoint path, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. 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 short and front-loaded with the emoji and key labels. It conveys the purpose in one sentence and confirms safety in two more. Every sentence adds value with no fluff, though the structure could be improved by separating purpose from safety notes more clearly.

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 tool's simplicity (list all) and the presence of annotations and schema descriptions, the description is minimally complete. However, with no output schema, it would benefit from mentioning what is returned (e.g., 'returns a list of custom field meta objects'). It is adequate but leaves room for improvement.

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% parameter description coverage, with each parameter (limit, offset, orders, filters) clearly documented. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning; it only states the overall purpose. Therefore, the description meets the baseline but does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 fields' and specifies it's for Account Custom Field Meta, with GET endpoint. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_a_customfieldmeta or retrieve_a_custom_field_meta, but could be more explicit about the scope (e.g., 'list all custom field meta' instead of 'custom fields').

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 indicates it's a read-only operation ('Fetches data. Makes no changes') and provides a READ-ONLY emoji, which implies safe usage. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like retrieve_a_custom_field_meta or list_all_custom_field_values, and no mention of when not to use it.

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