clickup_get_team_custom_fields

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds that it returns only top-level workspace fields, mentions response format options, and provides error handling details for 404, 401, and 403. No contradiction with 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?

The description is well-structured with separate sections for purpose, when to use, when not to use, returns, examples, and error handling. It is concise and front-loaded, with no extraneous information.

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?

Given the output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers scope, usage, alternatives, and error handling. Complete for a read-only list tool with good annotations.

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% per context (though schema itself has descriptions). The description does not elaborate on parameter details beyond the schema, but the schema is rich. The example helps, but parameter semantics are largely covered by the schema. 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 clearly states 'List the Workspace-scoped Custom Fields' with the specific API call and scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools by noting it only returns workspace-level fields, not inherited ones.

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 states when to use ('inventory organization-wide Custom Fields') and when not to use ('to find a field usable on a specific task'), with a clear alternative: 'clickup_get_list_custom_fields'.

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