field_tooltip

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that tooltip text is returned and does not mention how field_name is resolved, what search_by_title does, whether a visible field is required, or any error 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 with no filler words. It is concise, though it sacrifices necessary explanatory content; still, conciseness itself is handled well.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the one-line description is far from complete. An agent cannot determine how to specify the field, what search_by_title changes, or what the returned tooltip text represents in different contexts.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters. The meanings of field_name, session_id, and search_by_title are left entirely to the schema property names, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 clear verb ('Return') and resource ('field tooltip text'), so an agent knows what the tool does. It is distinct enough from siblings like field_info and field_value_text, though it does not explicitly name them or contrast with them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as field_info, field_value_text, or field_dropdown_items. The intended context is only implied by the name and one-line description.

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