custom_menus_get_custom_menu_by_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the token requirement, which is genuinely useful and not available in any structured field. However, it does not disclose what the response contains (e.g., the full menu object) or any error behavior, leaving some ambiguity.

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, concise sentence that states the action first then the key requirement. No filler or repetition; 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 get-by-ID tool with strong annotations, the description is adequate but has gaps: it doesn't explicitly say what the return value is (the menu object vs. just a link), nor does it mention the possibility of a not-found response. The token requirement is covered, but the ambiguity around 'Link' affects completeness.

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 coverage is 100% and the only parameter, customMenuId, is already described as 'Unique identifier of the custom menu'. The description adds no additional meaning or context about the parameter, so the baseline of 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 states 'Get Custom Menu Link' with a clear verb and resource, but the phrase 'Link' is ambiguous—it could mean retrieving a link or the full menu object. The tool name clearly indicates fetching by ID, but the description doesn't reinforce the by-ID semantics or differentiate from the sibling get_custom_menus (plural), which lists all menus. Still, the purpose is understandable.

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?

Provides a specific prerequisite: requires an agency-level token, not a location PIT. This is useful context but does not guide when to choose this tool over the sibling custom_menus_get_custom_menus or when to avoid it. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so the agent must infer that IDs are needed for this call.

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