get_custom_field_to_field_group

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds the HTTP method (GET) and states 'Makes no changes', which is consistent but adds minimal new behavioral insight beyond 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 concise, using two sentences to convey purpose and safety. However, the title 'Get Custom Field Group by ID' is repeated, and the structure could be more streamlined without the duplicate.

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 read-by-ID operation with comprehensive annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and safety. It lacks mention of return format or error scenarios, but the absence of an output schema and the presence of rich annotations make this acceptable.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not elaborate on parameters, adding no extra meaning beyond the schema's minimal descriptions ('Group ID', 'Request body (application/json).').

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 the resource 'Custom Field Group by ID', making the operation unambiguous. It differentiates from sibling tools like 'get_all_custom_field_groups' by specifying retrieval by a single ID.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for retrieving a single group by ID, nor does it contrast with list or mutation tools for custom field groups.

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