Show custom field

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe read-only operation. The description adds the HTTP GET method and the '/v2/custom-fields/{id}' path, but does not disclose error behavior, auth requirements, or response structure beyond what annotations already provide. This is adequate for a simple retrieval, but no additional behavioral context is given.

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 brief and front-loaded with the purpose. However, the first sentence 'Show custom field' is redundant with the title, and the description could be condensed to just the second sentence plus the endpoint. Still, it is not verbose.

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 GET-by-ID tool with robust annotations and one required parameter, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand the operation. It lacks an explicit description of the return payload, but given the tool's simplicity and the lack of an output schema, the provided context is adequate.

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 single 'id' parameter is fully described in the schema ('The ID of the custom field.'), and the description does not add further detail about format, source, or validation. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action ('Retrieves the details') and the resource ('existing custom field'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like listCustomFields (which lists multiple) and update/delete operations. The HTTP endpoint further clarifies the specific resource being accessed.

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 usage: when you need details of a specific existing custom field identified by an id, you call this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like listCustomFields or when not to use it, leaving the distinction to inference.

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