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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that - no mention of return shape, whether missing IDs error, or account/auth scoping. It is not contradictory, but it contributes no behavioral context of its own.

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?

It is short, but the second sentence merely rephrases the first and the title, so the content is duplicated rather than front-loaded with new information. Every sentence should earn its place, and one of the two does not.

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 read tool with a fully documented two-parameter schema and complete read-only annotations, the bare minimum is arguably present. Still, there is no output schema and the description says nothing about what the response contains, so it falls short of fully complete.

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%: both 'id' and the 'fields' projection array are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax or semantics on top, so the baseline 3 for high coverage applies.

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 verb (get) and resource (custom attribute details), so the basic purpose is legible. However, the two sentences are near-identical restatements and give no differentiation from siblings like list_custom_attributes, update_custom_attribute, or delete_custom_attribute. An agent can guess the intent but gets no help distinguishing this from the fetch/list siblings.

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 indication of when to use this tool versus list_custom_attributes or update_custom_attribute, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description assumes the reader already knows the API surface, which is a gap given the dense cluster of custom-attribute siblings.

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