pipedrive_get_field

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, which establish safety and idempotency. The description adds context that the tool helps decode 40-character hash keys, going beyond structured data. It does not contradict 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?

Two sentences: first states the core functionality, second adds a specific use case. No fluff, every sentence adds value. Highly concise and well-structured.

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 get operation with no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and when to use it. It could mention what 'details' includes (e.g., field name, type), but given the openWorldHint, it's acceptable. The tool is straightforward, so completeness is good.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds the context that the key is a 40-character hash for custom fields, which reinforces the schema description. No additional parameter details beyond that, so it meets but does not exceed expectations.

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 tool gets details of a specific field by its key, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('details of a specific field'). It also mentions the use case of looking up what a 40-character hash field key means, distinguishing it from list tools like pipedrive_list_deal_fields.

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 a clear use case: 'Useful for looking up what a 40-character hash field key means.' It implies when to use the tool (when you have a key and need field details), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like list_fields. However, the guidance is adequate for an agent to understand its primary purpose.

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