Custom Field Defs Get

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real operational context: the API is flagged as unstable, the exact HTTP route is given, and the required scope (read_products/write_products) is named. It stops short of describing error behavior or response shape for a read tool.

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?

Three short, front-loaded lines: one for purpose, one for the endpoint, one for scope and API version. Every line carries actionable information and nothing is repeated or padded.

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 five-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and an explicit annotation profile, the definition covers what an agent needs to address and authorize the call. The only gap is that it does not hint at what the returned definition contains, which matters somewhat since there is no output schema.

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 entity, slug, namespace, fields, and response_format are all documented in the schema itself. The description's path template reinforces that namespace and slug are path-level identifiers, but adds nothing about the fields or response_format options, so 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?

States a specific verb (Get) plus a precise resource (a custom field definition) and the exact key pair (namespace/slug) that addresses it, which cleanly separates it from the sibling list/delete/build tools of the same family.

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 gives the precondition for calling (you must have namespace and slug) and the required scope, but never states when to prefer this over tiendanube_custom_field_defs_list or how it differs from tiendanube_custom_fields_get. Usage is implied by the identifier-based addressing rather than spelled out.

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