Greenhouse MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or response format. While 'Get' implies non-destructive behavior, the description lacks details about what happens with invalid IDs, whether the operation is idempotent, or any side effects. For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and contains zero redundant content. Every word earns its place in this minimal but complete statement of purpose.

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?

Given that an output schema exists (which presumably documents the return structure), the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a retrieval tool with no annotations and minimal parameter documentation, the description should provide more context about authentication, error conditions, and typical usage patterns. The existence of an output schema raises the baseline, but the description remains too sparse for optimal agent understanding.

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 0%, but the description compensates by specifying that the single parameter is used 'by ID'. However, it doesn't explain what a custom field ID represents, its format, or where to obtain valid IDs. The description adds minimal value beyond what can be inferred from the parameter name 'custom_field_id' in the schema. With only one parameter, the baseline expectation is higher than for multi-parameter tools.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('a single custom field by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_custom_fields' or 'update_custom_field', but the singular vs plural distinction is implied. The description avoids tautology by specifying the 'by ID' aspect rather than just restating the tool name.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_custom_fields' or 'update_custom_field'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone without explicit context about when this specific retrieval method is appropriate.

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