GET /fields/{id}

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description restates that it is a GET returning field info and adds only provenance ('Generated from Snipe-IT OpenAPI operation'), without extra behavioral context such as auth, rate limits, or response shape. It is consistent with the annotations.

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 short sentences with the purpose front-loaded. The 'Generated from...' provenance is low-value but does not seriously undermine conciseness.

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 simple one-parameter read endpoint with complete schema coverage and annotations covering safety, this is sufficient to call the tool correctly. It does not explain return payload or error behavior, but the endpoint is low-complexity and no output schema exists.

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?

The sole parameter is fully documented in the schema at 100% coverage, including that it is the ID number of the custom field. The description adds no additional meaning, format, or constraints beyond what the schema already 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?

States a specific verb and resource: GET /fields/{id} returns field info by id. The operation is clear, but it does not differentiate from similarly named siblings such as snipeit_gen_fieldsid_1, snipeit_gen_fieldsid_2, or snipeit_gen_fields.

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 'by id' framing implies this is used when a custom field ID is known. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of sibling field endpoints, nor does it state exclusions or alternatives.

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