Get Custom Fields

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains what the tool returns (field names, required, type, input_format, valid_options) and how to use those results. It does not cover edge cases like pagination or error behavior, but the core behavior is well disclosed.

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 well-structured with clear sections for important return fields, filter options, and an example. It is a bit longer than strictly necessary, but every section serves a purpose and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately explains the return value details. It also covers usage context through the example. It does not explicitly state the default behavior when no filters are supplied, but this is strongly implied by the phrasing 'filter options.'

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 already covers all three parameters with good descriptions. The tool description adds meaningful extra context, such as pipeline_id being required when record_type is 'Pipeline' and how field names should be used as keys in custom_fields. This goes beyond the schema's baseline.

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 retrieves custom field definitions for the LACRM account, with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool get_pipeline_custom_fields, so it falls just short of a perfect score.

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 explicitly says to use this tool FIRST when working with custom fields, and provides a concrete example for creating pipeline items. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it lacks the full exclusion/alternative guidance needed for a 5.

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