item_detailsGet details on a specific item on 1stDibs. You'll need to input the item ID. You can search for an item or browse for an item to find an item ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| itemId | Yes | Item ID to get details for |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and only says 'Get details', which implies a read operation but does not disclose what details are returned, whether authentication is required, or any error behavior. This is a thin disclosure for a tool with no structured safety hints.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every clause contributes value. There is no filler or redundancy.
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 single-parameter getter tool, the description covers the core functionality and prerequisite source for the ID. While there is no output schema, the absence of detail about return fields is not critical here, though a slightly richer description of what 'details' includes would improve completeness.
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 schema fully describes itemId, but the tool description adds practical guidance by stating that the ID must be input and that it can be found through searching or browsing. This helps the agent understand how to populate the parameter, going beyond the schema's definition.
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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'details on a specific item on 1stDibs', making the purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like browse_items and search_items by focusing on a specific item ID.
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 explains that an item ID is needed and explicitly points to search/browse tools as a way to obtain it. This provides clear usage context, though it stops short of saying when not to use this tool or naming alternatives directly as exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
browse_items and search_items both return item lists, but browse is clearly category-driven while search is query-driven. item_details and read_taxonomy are distinct. The descriptions help differentiate the two listing tools.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (browse_items, read_taxonomy, search_items), but item_details breaks it by using noun_noun. The inconsistency is minor and does not impede readability.
Four tools cover the core discovery workflow: taxonomy, browse, search, and item details. This is a well-scoped set for a marketplace listing server, with no redundancy or excessive surface.
The set covers the main actions needed to explore and retrieve item information. A minor gap is that read_taxonomy requires a category, so you cannot list all root categories without prior knowledge, but the description provides top-level categories.