custom_properties_get_by_id

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the core behavior: a read-style retrieval operation that returns one object. But it does not mention what happens for invalid or missing IDs, error behavior, or any other operational details.

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, direct sentence with no redundant wording. It front-loads the action and resource, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 operation with one well-documented parameter, the description is largely sufficient. It clearly defines what is retrieved and by what identifier. The main omissions are error/not-found behavior and return format, but these are minor for a tool of this simplicity.

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 only parameter, 'id', is already documented as 'Integer ID'. The description merely reinforces that the tool looks up by ID and adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 action ('Return') and resource ('a single Custom Property') with a clear retrieval scope ('by its ID'). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like custom_properties_search or custom_properties_get_by_type_id.

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 usage context is implied: use this tool when you have a specific Custom Property ID and need that single record. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which alternative to prefer, such as custom_properties_search or custom_properties_get_by_type_id.

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