List publication fields

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

The readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false annotations already establish this as a safe read operation. The description usefully adds the OAuth scope requirement (publication_fields:read) and 'Reads account data', but says nothing about pagination behavior or return shape, so it adds moderate value over the annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then auth context. No filler. It is terse but every sentence carries information relevant to invoking the tool.

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 seven-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but thin: the schema covers pagination and filtering, yet the description offers no hint about the collection being returned or pagination model. It is minimally complete but not rich.

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 all seven parameters (page, limit, cursor, status, account, all_pages, max_items) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 publication fields'), making it distinguishable from sibling operations like create_publication_field, get_publication_field, and update_publication_field. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this list tool versus alternatives such as get_publication_field or list_publications. The OAuth scope note is an auth prerequisite, not usage guidance, so the description leaves when-to-use entirely to inference.

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