conduyt_report_fields

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does so by enumerating the payload's content categories (own columns, per-row rollups, account custom fields with type, operators, and group/sort/measure flags). It does not state that the call is read-only or mention permission/auth requirements, which would be the last piece needed for a top score.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that packs the payload contents and the pre-build guidance with no filler; nothing could be removed without losing signal.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema catalogue lookup, the description adequately conveys what comes back and when to call it. It leaves the exact response shape (item keys, nesting of rollups) to inference, which is a minor gap given no output schema is declared.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'entity' parameter is an enum documented as 'The report base'. The description adds only the notion that the base determines which own columns vs. contacts/deals rollups are returned, which is marginal beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

It states precisely what is returned: a per-base field catalogue containing the entity's own columns, rollups, and account custom fields with type/operator/group-sort-measure metadata. That is specific enough to distinguish it from list_custom_fields or list_reports, though the verb is implicit (a noun phrase rather than 'Returns the field catalogue') and no sibling is named.

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?

'Read this before building a report' gives a clear usage condition and sequencing relative to the report-building siblings. It stops short of naming the alternatives it replaces (e.g. list_custom_fields) or stating exclusions, so it is clear context rather than explicit when/when-not guidance.

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