Get Custom Fields

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

The description adds the HTTP method (GET) and the required OAuth scope (locations/customFields.readonly), which are behaviorally useful beyond the annotations. The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description is consistent with them. No contradiction found.

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 compact and front-loaded: it starts with the operation, then provides the endpoint and auth scope. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 read-only GET with two parameters and strong annotations, the description is mostly sufficient. However, it does not explain what the returned custom fields contain or how this differs from the singular custom field endpoint, leaving a moderate gap for an agent deciding between related 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 input schema already documents both locationId and model. The description does not add extra meaning about the model filter or locationId format, so it relies on the schema as expected.

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 clearly states the operation is 'Get Custom Fields' and includes the exact endpoint path with locationId. It is specific about the resource, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool locations_get_custom_field beyond the plural/singular naming.

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 versus alternatives such as locations_get_custom_field or locations_get_custom_values. The endpoint and scope are provided, but no context is given for choosing this tool over related custom-field tools.

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