Get Custom Value

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the explicit HTTP GET method and the resource path template, which is useful contextual detail beyond the annotations. However, it discloses no further behavioral traits such as return format, auth requirements, or error behavior.

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 extremely concise, front-loading the operation and endpoint in a single line with no filler. However, it is almost too sparse: it restates the title and adds the URL, but omits explanatory content that could aid tool selection. It is efficient but at the cost of completeness, warranting a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns or what a custom value is, but it does neither. There is also no mention of how this singular retrieval relates to locations_get_custom_values or custom fields. Given the low parameter count and annotations, the operation is simple, but the missing context about return values and resource meaning leaves a notable gap for an agent.

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% for the two required parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description's endpoint template shows that locationId and id are path parameters, adding a small amount of locational meaning beyond the schema's 'Location Id' and 'Custom Value Id'. But it does not clarify value formats, constraints, or relationships beyond what the schema already provides.

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 and resource: 'Get Custom Value' with the endpoint GET /locations/{locationId}/customValues/{id}. This makes clear it retrieves a single custom value by ID, and the singular form distinguishes it from sibling locations_get_custom_values (plural). However, it does not explain what a 'custom value' semantically represents, so it is clear but slightly under-specified.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools, such as locations_get_custom_values (list all) or locations_get_custom_field. An agent must infer from the endpoint and tool name that this is for retrieving one specific custom value by ID, which is left entirely to the reader.

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