Get exact custom checkout field

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: this is not a native GET endpoint and implements the read via list_custom_fields followed by exact matching, which helps an agent understand performance and implementation.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior and then the key constraint. No wasted words.

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?

Purpose and implementation caveat are well covered, and annotations handle safety. However, for a three-parameter read tool with low schema description coverage and no output schema, the description leaves meaningful parameter gaps.

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 low at 33%. The description only indirectly clarifies the name parameter through 'exact field-name match' and says nothing about product_id or the account parameter, so it does not compensate for the schema's missing parameter documentation.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: gets an exact custom checkout field. It also distinguishes this from list_custom_fields by describing the exact field-name match and noting there is no native single-custom-field GET endpoint.

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?

Names the relevant alternative (list_custom_fields) and explains this tool is a compatibility read when an exact field is needed. Usage context is clear, though explicit when-not-to-use conditions are not stated.

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