get_field_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what information is returned (field details with discrete value mappings) and hints at functionality (auto-resolution of string labels in filters). However, it doesn't mention performance characteristics, error conditions, authentication requirements, or rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is adequate but leaves gaps.

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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose statement, usage guidance, parameters explanation, and return value description. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information. The text is front-loaded with the core purpose and most important usage guidance.

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 has an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description provides good coverage of purpose, usage context, and parameter semantics. With no annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral details, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. The description is reasonably complete for this type of metadata retrieval tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It provides a dedicated 'Args' section that explains all three parameters: ems_system_id, database_id, and field_id. The field_id explanation is particularly helpful with examples and multiple valid formats. This adds significant value beyond what the bare schema provides.

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 the verb 'Get' and resource 'field metadata' with specific details about what metadata is included (type, units, discrete value mappings). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing specifically on field metadata rather than listing fields (find_fields) or querying data (query_database). The purpose is specific and well-defined.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: 'Essential for discrete fields: shows numeric code-to-label mappings needed for filtering.' It explains that string labels in filters are auto-resolved but this tool should be used to verify available values. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention specific alternatives among the sibling tools.

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