wafeq_custom_fields_retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds the endpoint and READ-ONLY marker. It does not add deeper behavioral context such as 404 behavior, auth requirements, or response shape, but for a read-only retrieval tool the annotation coverage makes this acceptable.

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 short but contains redundant restatement: 'Retrieve custom field' and 'Endpoint for retrieving a single custom field' say essentially the same thing. The useful endpoint and READ-ONLY prefix are front-loaded, but the duplication keeps it from being tightly structured.

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 one-parameter read-only retrieval tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It gives the HTTP method and resource path and clarifies the singleness of the operation, though it could briefly mention that the response is the custom field representation or that the id comes from a list/create response.

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% and the single required parameter id already has a clear description. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the id format or where to obtain it, which is fine because the schema covers the semantics fully.

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 specific verb ('retrieve'), a resource ('custom field'), and explicitly says 'single custom field', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like custom_fields_list, custom_fields_create, and custom_fields_destroy. The endpoint line also pins the operation to GET /custom-fields/{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 implies the tool is for fetching one custom field by ID, but it does not state when to prefer it over the list sibling or mention any exclusions. There is no explicit routing to alternatives, so usage guidance is only implied.

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