get_deal_fields

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

Without annotations, the description details the returned structure (key, name, field_type, options) and the overall purpose. It doesn't mention side effects, but for a read-only tool this is sufficient.

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 concise, with a clear summary, a structured 'Returns' section, and an example. Every sentence adds value, 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters) and the existence of an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns. No additional context is needed.

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 zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description includes an example call, which adds no extra semantics but meets the baseline for parameterless tools.

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 'Get all deal field definitions from Pipedrive' and explains the mapping from hash IDs to human-readable names. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_deals' and 'get_person_fields' by focusing on field metadata.

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 notes that the tool is 'Essential for understanding custom fields in deal data,' providing clear context for when it should be used. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the purpose is well-defined.

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