Show Custom Field Metadatum

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds minimal behavioral insight: it confirms a GET request and returns a JSON object. It fails to mention that the endpoint supports pagination (via page and per_page parameters) and does not explain the 'view' parameter's effect on the response. This leaves important behavioral details undocumented.

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 four sentences, starting with the purpose, then the use case, return type, required parameters, and API reference. It is reasonably concise but contains redundancy (e.g., 'Returns the details' and 'Returns a JSON object describing') and awkward phrasing ('Custom - Configurable Tools'). Each sentence provides value, but the structure could be tighter.

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 show tool with comprehensive schema descriptions and annotations, the description covers the core purpose, required parameters, and endpoint. However, it lacks details on the 'view' parameter options, pagination behavior, and the structure of the returned JSON object (no output schema provided). Given the complexity (5 parameters) and the presence of many sibling tools, more context would be beneficial for full 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description only highlights required parameters (id, company_id) but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. The schema's descriptions for parameters like 'view' are truncated, and the description does not clarify them further.

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 details for a specified Custom Field Metadatum, using verbs like 'Returns' and 'fetch', which clarifies the action on the resource. However, the phrasing 'Custom - Configurable Tools' is slightly ambiguous and doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like show_custom_field_definition, though the resource name itself is distinct.

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 explains when to use the tool—'to fetch the full details of a specific Custom - Configurable Tools by its identifier'. It does not provide guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., list_custom_field_metadata for multiple items). The required parameters are listed, which is helpful, but no context on when to choose this over other show tools.

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