locations_get_custom_value

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds zero behavioral context beyond the annotations—nothing about what the response contains, potential errors, or the meaning of 'custom value'. Since it does not contradict annotations but also provides no added transparency, this low score reflects the lack of contribution.

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, but this is due to under-specification rather than conciseness. It omits essential information about the tool's purpose and context, making it insufficient for an agent to understand its role. A good concise description should still be informative; this one is merely truncated.

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-by-id tool, the annotations and schema cover safety and parameter format, but the description fails to explain what a custom value is or how this tool fits into the broader locations API family. With no output schema and a vague description, the agent lacks enough context to confidently invoke this tool correctly, especially given the existence of related tools.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters ('id' and 'locationId' are described). The description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline score of 3 applies; no additional semantics are provided or needed.

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 Value' is a tautology that restates the tool name without clarifying what a custom value is in this context. It does not distinguish from the sibling tool locations_get_custom_values (plural) or any other related tools, leaving the agent to infer that this fetches a single record 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The plural variant locations_get_custom_values exists, and there are create/update/delete siblings, but the description offers no context about retrieval by ID or the optional locationId parameter. The agent is left without direction on selecting this tool.

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