List Custom Fields

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the genuinely useful deprecation status, but says nothing about pagination behavior across 28 parameters or how results are shaped.

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?

Two short sentences with the deprecation warning front-loaded, which is the right priority ordering. Minimal but efficient; the trailing "List Custom fields" adds little beyond the title.

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?

The output schema means return values need not be described, and the deprecation notice covers the most important decision. However, for a 28-parameter listing tool with near-zero schema documentation, an agent gets no help on filtering or pagination semantics.

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 only 7% across 28 parameters, and the description contributes nothing — no explanation of the filter_* operator families, sort syntax, or page_size/page_number. This is exactly the case where the description must compensate and does not.

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?

States a clear verb+resource ("List Custom fields") and leads with a deprecation marker, so the agent knows what the tool returns and that it is legacy. It does not name the specific replacement among the many `*_form_field*` / `*_custom_field*` siblings.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent not to use this and to prefer "form field endpoints instead" — a clear when-not signal. The guidance is vague about which concrete sibling to route to, leaving the agent to choose among list_form_fields, get_custom_field, etc.

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