locations_get_custom_field

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

The description provides zero behavioral information beyond what annotations already declare (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). It does not disclose defaulting behavior for locationId, the fact that the 'id' parameter can be a field key, or any response characteristics. With no added context, the description fails to leverage the safety annotations to add meaningful detail.

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?

The description is extremely short ('Get Custom Field'), which could be seen as concise, but it is under-specified rather than effectively concise. It lacks essential details that would help an agent understand the tool's purpose or invocation. A single phrase that merely restates the name does not earn credit for conciseness because it omits required substance.

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 tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description should explain what a custom field is, what the return value represents, and how it differs from sibling tools like 'locations_get_custom_fields' or 'custom_fields_get_custom_field_by_id'. None of this context is provided, leaving the agent with insufficient information to select or invoke the tool correctly.

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 parameters 'id' and 'locationId' have explicit descriptions in the schema (id: 'Custom Field Id or Field Key...', locationId: 'Location Id Defaults to GHL_LOCATION_ID when omitted'). The tool description adds no parameter semantics, but per the rubric, with high schema coverage, baseline 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 'Get Custom Field' is essentially a tautology of the tool name 'locations_get_custom_field'. It does not specify the resource type (location), the scope, or the nature of the custom field. The verb 'Get' is present, but the resource is vague ('Custom Field' could refer to any custom field in the system). Without context, an agent cannot distinguish this from siblings like 'locations_get_custom_fields' or 'custom_fields_get_custom_field_by_id'.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention the singular/plural distinction, the difference between locations_ and custom_fields_ namespaces, or any preconditions. An agent has no idea whether this is the right tool for retrieving a single custom field by ID or key, or whether a different sibling should be used.

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