Get Tracker field

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the shape of the response (value schema, read-only flag, allowed options, category), which matters because there is no output schema. It says nothing about auth needs or failure modes, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste: the return content is front-loaded and the routing guidance follows immediately. Every clause earns its place.

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 one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, the definition is nearly complete: it explains what is returned despite the absence of an output schema. The only remaining gap is any note on failure behavior for an unknown field id, which is minor.

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 100% and the single field_id parameter is documented with an example ('summary or a custom-field key'). The description reinforces this via 'when you already know the field id' but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific resource and scope ('Parameters of a single issue field') and enumerates what the payload contains, which lets an agent distinguish it from the list sibling. The verb is implicit rather than stated ('Parameters of...' instead of 'Get the parameters of...'), but the intent is unambiguous.

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?

It gives an explicit when-to-use condition ('when you already know the field id') and names the alternative with its own condition ('use fields_list to enumerate every field in the organisation'). The routing decision is fully determined with no inference required.

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