jd_get_field

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), but the description adds a genuinely useful behavioral detail: the boundary may be null when absent, or an embedded {"error": ...} object when the fetch fails, meaning partial failure is returned in-band rather than raised. That is context the annotations do not provide.

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?

Front-loaded first sentence delivers the core purpose, followed by return-shape detail and parameter provenance. Slightly padded by restating the schema-documented ID sources, but every sentence is relevant and nothing is buried.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, yet it usefully flags the null and error-shaped boundary cases. For a two-param read tool with full schema coverage, this is essentially complete; only minor guidance on sibling selection is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters already carry descriptions naming their source tools, so the description's restatement of provenance is largely redundant. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (get), a singular resource (one field), and the exact scope of what comes back (field record plus its active boundary). This clearly distinguishes it from jd_list_fields, which returns many fields without boundary geometry.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent where to source both required IDs (org_id from jd_list_organizations, field_id from jd_list_fields), which establishes a clear call ordering. It stops short of naming exclusions, e.g. when to prefer jd_list_fields or jd_get_field_operation_measurements, so it is not a full 5.

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