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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds genuinely useful detail beyond that: the exact payload an agent gets back (type, allowed values, max length, required flag, mail-merge text) plus the underlying REST route. That return-shape disclosure matters because there is no output schema.

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 front-loaded sentence listing the returned attributes, followed by the exact endpoint. No filler; every clause 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and annotations carry the safety profile. Minor gaps remain around error/not-found behavior and the relationship to the list sibling.

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% for the single customdata_id parameter, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description only echoes the id's role via the endpoint template and adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema's pattern.

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?

Names the specific resource (one custom data field) and enumerates exactly what it exposes: type, options, required flag, mail-merge text. It's clear what the tool returns. However, it never contrasts itself with the sibling trumpia_list_custom_fields, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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 when-to-use or when-not guidance. The obvious alternative, trumpia_list_custom_fields for enumerating all fields, is not mentioned, nor is any prerequisite (e.g., needing a known customdata_id) stated.

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