List custom lead fields

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuinely useful context beyond them: required scopes (leads:read, luca:read), data sensitivity 'full_content', the underlying endpoint, and the no-idempotency note.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by compact structured metadata. Slightly padded by 'Does not require idempotency', which duplicates the idempotentHint annotation, but overall tight.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers endpoint, scopes, sensitivity, and workspace overrides. Complete for a simple two-param read tool; only the sibling differentiation is thin.

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 100%, so both optional workspace override params are already documented. The description adds the meaningful nuance that these override the default workspace from the environment, but contributes no format or precedence detail beyond that.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('List custom lead field definitions'), matching the title and clearly indicating a read-only enumeration. It does not explicitly name the nearest sibling (luca_leads_field_definitions_upsert), so the agent must infer list-vs-upsert from naming alone.

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?

Usage is implied by the read-only listing purpose, and the description notes that workspaceId/workspaceSlug override the environment-configured default. However it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison against the field_definitions_upsert sibling, leaving the agent to infer selection.

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