get_person_fields

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It correctly implies idempotent read operation but does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. It is adequate but minimal.

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?

Description is concise with a clear intro, return details, and example. Sentence count is reasonable; no wasted words, but the structure could be slightly tighter by merging purpose and return info.

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 zero parameters and existing output schema, the description covers purpose, return structure, and example adequately. It is complete for this simple tool, though it could explicitly note that the output schema provides further details.

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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by explaining the return structure (key, name, field_type, options) and purpose, earning the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter 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?

Description clearly states it retrieves all person/contact field definitions from Pipedrive, specifying it returns metadata mapping hash IDs to human-readable names. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_deal_fields and get_organization_fields by being specific to persons.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. While it mentions being 'essential for understanding custom fields in person data,' it does not differentiate from other field retrieval tools or provide context on prerequisites.

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