meta get node fields

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, and the description's 'GET-only' phrasing aligns with these rather than adding new information. It does add context around the 'escape hatch' purpose and the flat-fields limitation, but much of that is also present in the schema's parameter descriptions, so the net added behavioral insight is modest.

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 two tight sentences with zero fluff. The core action is front-loaded, and the second sentence explains the tool's raison d'être without digressing. Every sentence earns its place, making it efficient for an agent to parse quickly.

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 read-only, idempotent tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description supplies the essential context — it is a fast-moving escape hatch for fields not yet in the fixed schema. It does not explain return value details, but the output schema covers that, and the annotations already cover safety. It is nearly complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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 each parameter (nodeId, fields, includeMetadata) is already well documented in the input schema. The description reinforces the notion of 'arbitrary flat fields' for the fields parameter, but it does not add substantive semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clear action ('Read arbitrary flat fields') on a specific resource ('one Meta Graph node'), and directly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by framing itself as an 'escape hatch' for newly released fields that fixed schema tools may not yet cover. This makes the tool's unique role immediately obvious.

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 when to use this tool — when you need fields that are 'newly released' and not yet in the fixed MCP schema. It provides this context clearly, but it does not explicitly name the alternative specific tools (e.g., meta_get_campaigns) or state when not to use the escape hatch, leaving the exclusion to inference rather than explicit guidance.

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