List custom fields

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

'Reads account data' merely restates readOnlyHint=true that annotations already declare explicitly, adding no new behavioral context. Nothing is said about pagination behavior, result ordering, or account scoping, even though the tool is openWorld and the pagination semantics are non-trivial.

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, front-loaded sentences with no noise, but the second sentence ('Reads account data') is filler that duplicates the annotation rather than doing work. Concise, yet under-specified for a 7-parameter 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 paginated 7-parameter list tool with no output schema and 43% schema coverage, the description is far too thin. It omits pagination/cursor behavior, account-scoping interactions, and result shape, leaving the agent without enough to call it correctly.

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 43% (after, before, per_page, and include_total_count are undocumented), so the description carries real burden here. It provides zero parameter guidance, leaving half the parameters with no meaning documented anywhere.

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 specific verb+resource ('List custom fields'), which is clear and unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from the CRUD siblings (create_custom_field, update_custom_field, delete_custom_field, bulk_create_custom_fields), so an agent gets no help distinguishing the read variant from the write variants.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to alternatives such as get/list siblings or the bulk/update counterparts. The agent must infer that this is the read-all path for custom fields entirely on its own.

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