Ghl List Custom Fields

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does state the operation is a read-only list and adds that it returns ids and fieldKeys, which is useful. However, it does not mention pagination, filtering effects, authentication, or any rate-limit behavior, leaving the safety profile mostly implied by the verb.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, includes the key scope qualifier, and contains no filler. Every word earns its place.

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 simple list operation with two optional parameters and an output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it omits parameter semantics entirely and lacks usage guidance, so an agent would not know what location_id filters or that limit defaults to 200.

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 for the undocumented 'limit' and 'location_id' parameters. It does not mention either parameter, their defaults, or what they control. The phrase about ids and fieldKeys describes the response, not the parameters.

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 ('List'), a resource ('custom fields'), and narrows scope to contact and opportunity models, while noting that ids and fieldKeys are included. This clearly differentiates it from sibling create/update/delete tools without needing to open their schemas.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions that would favor a different tool such as ghl_create_custom_field. The verb 'list' implies retrieval, but there is no explicit context, exclusions, or alternative routing.

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