Get publication field

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the required OAuth scope, which annotations do not convey, but says nothing about return shape, error behavior when the ID is unknown, or cross-account access.

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?

Three short sentences with the auth requirement front-loaded after the redundant lead. The first sentence duplicates the name/title and earns no place; the remaining two are terse but at least non-redundant.

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 full annotation coverage, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the bar is modest, and the auth scope note is a real addition. Still, for a getter the description never indicates what a publication field is or what the response contains, leaving the agent with minimal context.

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% and both parameters (account, publication_field_id) are documented in the schema, including the pub_field_ prefix pattern and the account defaulting rules. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 first sentence 'Get publication field' merely restates the tool name and title; it adds no scope, no verb differentiation, and no distinction from siblings such as list_publication_fields or update_publication_field. The only extra content, 'Reads account data,' is vague about what a publication field actually is.

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 description gives an auth prerequisite ('OAuth integrations require publication_fields:read') but never states when to use this tool versus list_publication_fields (enumerate all fields) or update_publication_field. The agent is left to infer that this is a single-resource fetch by ID.

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