Get custom field

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this as a safe read operation, but the description adds no additional behavioral context such as response format, error handling for missing IDs, or authentication requirements. It essentially restates the parameters already visible in the schema.

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, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded and contains no redundant or filler language. Every word contributes meaning.

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?

This is a simple read-only getter with two clearly described parameters and a readOnlyHint annotation. No output schema exists, but the return value is reasonably inferred as the custom field object. The description is adequate for selecting and invoking the tool, though it could mention the response shape for extra clarity.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by clarifying that 'id' is the custom field ID and 'entity_type' scopes the lookup. This gives enough semantic meaning for both parameters, though it lacks extra detail like value formats or relationships.

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 'Get a custom field by ID for an entity type' clearly specifies the action (get), resource (custom field), and required constraints (by ID, for an entity type). It distinguishes from list operations and other entity-specific getters by explicitly targeting a single custom field.

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?

Usage is implied via the phrase 'by ID for an entity type', indicating this is for retrieving a specific custom field rather than listing all. However, there is no explicit direction to alternatives like kommo_custom_fields_list or any when-not-to-use guidance, leaving the choice somewhat inferred.

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