Get custom field values for a resource

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it is a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying the exact scope of the retrieved data (owner, location, product number, shipping/expiry dates, notes, search tag, user-defined fields), which goes beyond the annotation hints. No contradictions; the 'Retrieves' verb aligns with read-only behavior.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the verb and resource. It includes examples in parentheses without excess verbosity. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function. No filler or redundant information.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, strong annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It covers what the tool retrieves and the resource type. It could optionally mention that the resource can be a computer or software, but this is already in the schema description. Overall, sufficient context for an agent without being verbose.

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% and the schema description for resourceId is detailed, explaining it expects either a computer resource_id or a software_id. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond 'specific resource', so with high schema coverage a baseline 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 uses a specific verb 'Retrieves' and clearly identifies the resource: 'custom field values linked to a specific resource'. It lists example fields (owner, location, product number, etc.), making it distinct from sibling tools like custom_field_metadata_list which lists metadata, and custom_column_udt_name_exists which checks UDT names. This provides unambiguous purpose and distinguishes from likely alternatives.

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: when you need custom field values for a specific resource, such as a computer or software. It provides context by listing example field categories. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or reference alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it for retrieving field values rather than metadata or other report tools.

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