Show Custom Field Metadatum (Deprecated)

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds valuable behavioral details: it returns a single JSON object, is read-only, and failure modes map to specific HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404). It also discloses the deprecation timeline. This goes well beyond the structured annotations and contains no contradictions.

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 dense but each sentence earns its place: purpose, deprecation status and timeline, usage condition, id resolution prerequisite, return shape, error payload details, required parameters, and API endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and has no redundant filler.

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 read-only show tool with no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: resource, endpoint, required parameters, prerequisite id resolution, return type (single JSON object), error behavior (401/403/404), and deprecation guidance. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline applies. The description adds the prerequisite that id must identify an existing parent record and restates required parameters, but most parameter semantics are already in the schema. The view parameter is not elaborated beyond what the schema says, providing minimal additional meaning.

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 opens with a specific, unambiguous statement: 'Returns the details for a specified Custom Field Metadatum.' This clearly identifies the verb (returns) and resource (Custom Field Metadatum), distinguishing it from list/create/update tools. The deprecation notice and use-case sentence further reinforce its specific scope.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when you already know which custom field metadatum you want and need its full field set.' It also instructs to resolve the id with a list tool first and directs users to newer versions via procore_search_endpoints due to deprecation, clearly differentiating from alternatives.

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