Get Field Concept Card

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the name-resolution pipeline (canonical name → spelling fold → merge aliases → synonyms → case-insensitive fallbacks), the fact that the response reports which resolution arm matched, and that include_history appends the curation trail. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 dense but well-organized with labeled sections: definition, USE WHEN, NOT FOR, ARGS, and RETURNS. The most important usage information is front-loaded, and each section earns its place. The small overlap between the opening summary and the RETURNS key list improves scannability rather than adding bloat.

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 tool with no output schema, the description provides the full return shape and the conditional presence of resolution and history fields. It also explains the resolution behavior and the exact-one-argument rule. The main gap is missing failure semantics, such as what happens when a supplied name or field_id cannot be resolved, which would help an agent handle the not-found case.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a meaningful nuance the schema does not encode: exactly one of field_id or name must be provided, even though the schema marks none as required. It also clarifies resolution order and the conditional return fields, going slightly beyond the per-parameter schema descriptions.

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 specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('CONCEPT CARD for one Field Registry field'), and an explicit inventory of what the card contains. It further distinguishes itself from siblings by naming talonic_list_fields and talonic_field_values in the NOT FOR section. An agent can confidently tell this apart from the other field-related tools.

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 USE WHEN section gives three concrete triggering scenarios, and the NOT FOR section explicitly names alternatives and what they are for. It also adds the crucial invocation constraint that exactly one of field_id or name should be supplied. This is explicit, actionable guidance with clear exclusions.

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