Get Contact Custom Field Definition

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's one genuine addition is the required scope 'contacts:read', which tells the agent about authorization needs — useful context beyond the annotations, but nothing about failure modes or missing-definition 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 short and front-loaded, but the opening sentence is pure repetition of the tool name and earns no place. The scope line is the only sentence carrying information; the rest is padding.

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 tool whose annotations cover safety, the definition is only marginally complete: it states auth scope, which is valuable, but with no output schema the agent gets no sense of what a 'definition' returns, and the required UUID parameter is unexplained.

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 50%: the 'account' parameter is documented in the schema, but 'definition_uuid' has only a pattern and minLength with no textual meaning. The description adds nothing about either parameter, leaving the required identifier's semantics and format undocumented.

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 restates the tool name and title verbatim ('Get Contact Custom Field Definition') without adding any specificity about what a definition contains or how it differs from the sibling list_contact_custom_field_definitions. The only added information is a generic 'Reads Calendly data' clause. It is essentially a tautology of the name.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of the sibling list_contact_custom_field_definitions, and no stated prerequisites beyond the scope line. An agent gets no help deciding between fetching a single definition and listing all definitions.

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