Get Tracker local field

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful return-content context (value schema, allowed-values provider, category), which matters because there is no output schema, but it says nothing about permissions, error behavior, or queue-existence requirements.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the discovery prerequisite. The second sentence partially repeats the first (category appears twice; 'type/options' rephrased as 'value schema/allowed-values provider'), which is mild redundancy rather than waste.

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 two-parameter read tool with 100% schema coverage and full safety annotations, the description covers purpose, the discovery prerequisite, and the shape of the returned definition, compensating for the absent output schema. Edge cases such as nonexistent queues or missing field keys are not addressed, keeping it just short of fully complete.

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%, so both parameters are already fully documented in the schema (including the 'key or numeric id' nuance for queue_id). The description only restates 'by queue and field key' and reiterates that field_key comes from localfields_list, adding little beyond the schema baseline.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('One local field's full definition') and enumerates the returned facets (type, options, category), which implicitly sets it apart from localfields_list. It does not, however, distinguish local fields from the global-field sibling tracker_fields_get, so the differentiation is only partial.

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 states an explicit prerequisite workflow: call ``localfields_list`` first to discover the ``field_key`` values in a queue. That is concrete when-to-use guidance, though it gives no conditions for when NOT to use this tool versus another lookup.

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