get_detailed_field_metadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses almost nothing behavioral: it doesn't say whether the call is read-only (only implied by "Get"), what volume or shape of metadata comes back, or whether the attribute must exist. "Full metadata details" is the only behavioral signal, and it is undefined.

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 with the resource stated immediately; no repetition or padding. The trailing "for deep analysis" is the only soft phrase, but it does hint at the depth of the response.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter read tool, but with no output schema and no annotations the description should say at least roughly what "full metadata" includes (types, constraints, picklist data?) so the agent can decide between this and sibling metadata tools. As written it is adequate but leaves the return contents and the summary/detail trade-off unexplained.

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%, with both required parameters (entity_logical_name, attribute_logical_name) documented in the schema itself, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no extra semantics such as where logical names come from or case-sensitivity — it merely echoes "attribute (field)".

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 pairs a specific verb ("Get") with a specific resource ("full metadata details for a specific attribute/field"), and the word "full" implicitly contrasts with summary-level siblings. It never names those siblings (get_entity_metadata_summary, get_field_picklist_options) outright, so the differentiation is left implicit rather than explicit.

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?

"For deep analysis" is the only usage cue and it is vague — it doesn't tell the agent when to prefer this over get_entity_metadata_summary or get_field_picklist_options, nor what prerequisites (e.g. logical names must already be known) apply. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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