wafeq_custom_fields_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint false. The description merely restates 'READ-ONLY' and 'GET', adding no new behavioral context such as pagination behavior, default page size, ordering, or response structure. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also does not go beyond them.

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-loads the endpoint, but 'List custom fields' and 'Endpoint for retrieving a list of custom fields' are redundant. It could be reduced to a single sentence without losing information.

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?

For a simple read-only list endpoint with optional pagination, the description plus annotations are minimally sufficient. However, the lack of an output schema means the description could have usefully described the response shape or pagination behavior, which it does not.

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%, and both page and page_size have clear descriptions in the input schema. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific action ('List') and resource ('custom fields'), and includes the collection endpoint GET /custom-fields/, which makes the basic purpose clear. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling custom_fields_retrieve tool, but the collection endpoint and list verb make the listing intent recognizable.

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 only implies usage: if you need a list of custom fields, call this endpoint. There is no explicit guidance on when to choose list over retrieve, when pagination is appropriate, or how this relates to other custom_fields_* siblings.

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