Get Incident Custom Field Selection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description's only additional disclosure is the deprecation status, which is genuinely valuable, but nothing is said about whether the endpoint still functions or whether calls will fail.

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?

Two short sentences with the deprecation warning front-loaded ahead of the functional description – exactly the ordering an agent needs. Zero filler.

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?

An output schema exists and the parameters are fully documented, so the description's job is mostly to convey status and purpose, which it does. The one gap is not naming the concrete replacement tool, which matters for a deprecated endpoint.

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 id parameter even explains the path substitution and the naming gotcha, so the description need not compensate. It adds nothing beyond the schema, which is the baseline-3 case for fully documented parameters.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Retrieves a specific incident custom field selection by id') and flags deprecation up front, which distinguishes it from the many active read tools. However, the redirect target is generic ('form field endpoints') rather than the exact sibling get_incident_form_field_selection.

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 '[DEPRECATED] Use form field endpoints instead' prefix does tell the agent to prefer an alternative, which is real usage guidance. But it never names the concrete sibling (get_incident_form_field_selection is right there in the sibling list), so the agent must still infer the replacement.

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