Custom Objects Get

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: an 'unstable API' stability warning, the required OAuth scope, and the concrete HTTP route. It does not describe failure modes for a bad namespace/slug, which keeps it below 5.

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?

Four short lines, front-loaded with the purpose, then the endpoint, then the scope. Each line carries distinct information, though the raw HTTP line partially duplicates what the name and path template already imply.

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 single-resource read with full schema coverage and rich annotations, this gives the agent everything essential: what is returned (a definition), auth scope, instability caveat, and no output-schema obligation. Only the error behavior for an unknown namespace/slug is unstated.

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 slug, namespace, fields, and response_format are already fully documented, including the enum for response_format. The description only adds that namespace and slug appear as path segments in '/custom-objects/{namespace}/{slug}', a marginal clarification. 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 and resource: 'Get a custom object definition'. The word 'definition' separates it from tiendanube_custom_object_entries_get, which returns entries rather than the schema. It does not explicitly name or exclude the sibling list/create/update/delete tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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 scope requirement ('read_products/write_products') and the API version are useful prerequisites, but there is no statement of when to choose this over tiendanube_custom_objects_list or how to obtain the namespace/slug pair. Usage must be inferred from the name and path template.

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