ghl_custom_field_get_by_id

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing that the tool returns folders as well as fields, lists supported object types, and provides endpoint details and OAuth scopes. It does not contradict annotations. Some minor behavioral details (e.g., rate limits) are absent, but it is sufficiently transparent.

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 contains unnecessary HTML tags (e.g., <div>, <p>) and repeats the title 'Get Custom Field / Folder By Id' twice. While the core information is present, the formatting issues and redundancy reduce conciseness. The important details are front-loaded, but the HTML clutter is detrimental.

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 retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides adequate context: it explains the dual nature, supported objects, and OAuth scopes. It could mention response structure or error scenarios, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to understand and use the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema only defines a required 'id' string parameter with no description. The description compensates by explaining that the 'id' can be for either a custom field or a folder, and advises checking the response shape to determine which. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, though it lacks examples or format hints.

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 clearly states that the tool retrieves both custom fields and folders by ID, explicitly differentiating it from sibling tools like create, delete, and update operations. It includes the phrase 'Get Custom Field / Folder By Id' and advises checking the response shape to distinguish the two.

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 explicitly states that the tool only supports Custom Objects and Company (Business) today, with future support for other Standard Objects. This provides clear guidance on when to use the tool and when not to. It also advises checking the response shape, which helps the agent interpret results correctly.

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