get_custom_field

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds that the response includes 'full details including data type and extra configuration', which is useful but not deep behavioral context. It doesn't mention error behavior, auth requirements, or what happens if the ID doesn't exist, but with readOnlyHint covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word earns its place. The detail about 'data type and extra configuration' is valuable and not redundant with the schema.

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 with readOnlyHint=true, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent what the tool does and what the response includes. It doesn't explain return format or error cases, but the simplicity of the tool and the annotation coverage make this a minor gap.

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%, so the description must compensate for the single 'id' parameter. The description clarifies that 'id' is the custom field's ID and that the result includes full details, which adds some meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't specify the ID format (number is in schema) or any constraints, so it only partially compensates.

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 verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('custom field'), and the retrieval mechanism ('by ID'), and it adds detail about what the response includes ('full details including data type and extra configuration'). It is clear and distinct from siblings like list_custom_fields or delete_custom_field, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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: call this when you need a single custom field's full details by ID. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs list_custom_fields or update_custom_field, but the 'by ID' and 'full details' phrasing gives reasonable context. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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