Get Custom Field

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by specifying the HTTP GET method and the return structure (full CustomField object with definition, metadata, and configuration), which aids the agent in anticipating the response. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

One concise sentence front-loads the endpoint and action, with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized and immediately conveys the tool's 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?

For a simple single-parameter read tool, the description covers purpose, HTTP method, and return content. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the mention of the full CustomField object. Annotations handle safety transparency, making this sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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 schema already documents the single 'id' parameter with 100% coverage, including type and description. The description merely restates that it's the unique ID, adding no additional semantic information beyond what the schema provides.

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 (retrieve), the resource (custom field), and the scope (single by unique ID). It distinguishes from sibling tools like gorgias_list_custom_fields by emphasizing 'single' versus a list operation.

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 implies usage when you have a specific custom field ID and need its details, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_custom_fields or create/update. No exclusions or alternative tool names are given.

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