Show Custom Field Definition (Deprecated)

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

The description goes beyond annotations by disclosing the deprecation date (2026-07-27) and removal date (2027-07-28). It describes the return format as 'a single JSON object' and specifies error behaviors: '401 when the token has expired, 403 without tool permission, and 404 when an id does not resolve.' It also reinforces read-only behavior, consistent with readOnlyHint.

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 moderately detailed but well-structured. The deprecation warning, usage guidance, error cases, and API reference are all relevant. Some redundancy exists with the schema (e.g., 'Required parameters: id, company_id'), but it does not harm readability.

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?

As there is no output schema, the description's statement that it returns 'a single JSON object describing the custom field definition' provides necessary context. It covers deprecation, id resolution, error handling, and required parameters. This is fairly complete for a deprecated show tool, though it could specify the fields returned.

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 already covers all 4 parameters with descriptions, including the enum for view and the meaning of includes_configurable_field_sets_count. The description adds guidance that 'id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first,' which is useful beyond schema. However, it does not explain the view values or the optional parameter beyond what the schema states.

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 clearly states the tool 'Returns the details for a specified Custom Field Definition.' It explicitly marks the endpoint as deprecated and directs users to newer versions via procore_search_endpoints, distinguishing it from sibling tools like show_custom_field_definition_company.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use: 'Use this when you already know which custom field definition you want and need its full field set.' It provides exclusion guidance by saying 'prefer a newer version' and instructs to 'use procore_search_endpoints to find it.' It also tells users to resolve the id with the matching list tool first.

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