Get Custom Field

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds only the endpoint path and provides no additional behavioral context such as single-resource semantics, response shape, or limitations. It does not go beyond what the annotations already communicate.

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 one compact sentence with no filler and front-loads the HTTP method and endpoint. It is appropriately concise, though it is also too sparse to provide contextual guidance.

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 two-parameter read operation with rich annotations and complete schema coverage, the endpoint alone is nearly sufficient. The main gap is the lack of usage guidance to disambiguate it from the many sibling getter and list tools.

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 applies. The schema documents id as 'Custom Field Id or Field Key' with examples and locationId as 'Location Id'; the description adds no parameter meaning beyond the path placeholders.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Get Custom Field') and includes the exact endpoint path, which identifies the operation as fetching one custom field rather than a list. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as locations_get_custom_fields or locations_get_custom_value.

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 guidance about when to use this tool instead of locations_get_custom_fields, locations_get_custom_value, or other related getter tools. The agent must infer usage from the name and endpoint alone.

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