Custom Fields Get

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds required scope information and the API version, but does not describe errors, rate limits, or response behavior beyond what the annotations provide.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the core action appears first, followed by the endpoint, scopes, and API version. Every line carries relevant operational information and there is no redundant prose.

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?

The description covers the endpoint, required scopes, and API version, which is good for an authenticated GET tool. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not explain what the returned custom field definition contains or how the fields parameter affects the response, leaving a notable 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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds the endpoint path and maps entity types to required scopes, which is mildly helpful, but it does not add syntax or meaning beyond what the schema already provides for fields and response_format.

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 a specific verb and resource: "Get one custom field definition," and reinforces it with the HTTP endpoint. It does not differentiate this tool from close siblings such as tiendanube_custom_field_defs_get or tiendanube_custom_fields_get, leaving some ambiguity about which getter to choose.

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 provides useful access context by listing the required OAuth scopes per entity, which implicitly tells the agent what permissions are needed. However, it does not say when to use this tool versus sibling retrieval tools or describe any exclusions or alternatives.

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