Get Custom Field

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, and an output schema exists, so most of the burden is covered. The description adds no behavioral context of its own, such as whether the id must exist or what happens on a missing id.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the gaps in usage and behavioral guidance rather than being a model of tight completeness.

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 tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is minimally sufficient to invoke correctly. It omits sibling routing and error behavior, which are the remaining meaningful gaps.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema even disambiguates the id argument name from a hypothetical custom_field_id and documents the `include` enum. The description's mention of id adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb (Retrieves) and resource (custom_field) and scopes it to a single record by id, which distinguishes it from list_custom_fields and create/update_custom_field siblings. It does not, however, differentiate it from the related get_custom_field_option tool, so an agent still has to check the schema.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to call this instead of list_custom_fields, search variants, or get_custom_field_option. The only implied usage is 'you have an id and want that one field', which the agent must infer.

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