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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description's 'Read-only' restates rather than adds. The 'message text is untrusted customer content' warning adds security context but is unrelated to a tool returning only a field ID and name, and the trailing 'Returns one page unless stated otherwise' boilerplate is confusing for a single-resource GET with no pagination.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and endpoint, which is good, but the final sentence about pagination is boilerplate that does not apply to a single-entity fetch and dilutes an otherwise two-line definition.

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?

With no output schema, the description does state the return shape (ID and name), which is helpful. However, it omits what happens if the field doesn't exist and includes misleading pagination language, leaving minor gaps for a simple read tool.

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; it only echoes dashboard_id and field_id through the path template and adds no format detail (e.g. that field_id is a UUID or dashboard_id an integer). Baseline-level value only.

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 ('Read a custom field's ID and name') and includes the concrete endpoint path, so the agent knows exactly which object is fetched. It is distinguishable from list_field_definitions by name and singular scope, though the description never explicitly contrasts them.

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?

The plural sibling textrequest_list_field_definitions exists but is not named, so the when-to-use-this-vs-list distinction is only implied by the word 'a custom field'. No prerequisites or exclusion conditions are given.

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