fields

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

The annotation already declares readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds important context: it specifies the three operation modes and warns that derived fields (country_worked, etc.) are computed and should never be written. This goes beyond the annotation, though permissions or side effects are not mentioned.

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 and well-structured, using a clear list for operations. Every sentence adds value, and the main purpose 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?

For a read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers operations, parameter usage, and a warning. It does not describe the return format in detail except 'with values', but this is sufficient given the low complexity. Could be slightly improved with an example output.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains the 'field' parameter (friendly name or raw control ID, with examples) and the 'operation' parameter (read, visible, all). This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 reads entry-box text field values and lists three specific operations (read, visible, all). It is a specific verb+resource combination and implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like status or diagnostics.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use each sub-operation (read by field, visible for current fields, all for both visible and hidden). It includes a warning against writing derived fields. However, there is no explicit when-not or alternative comparison with sibling tools.

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