get_item

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context, such as what the response contains, error behavior, or any side effects. It does not contradict annotations, but it also doesn't enrich them.

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?

'Fetch an item' is extremely concise and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified to the point of being terse, but since conciseness is about efficiency rather than completeness, it earns a high score for structure while lacking descriptive richness.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no nested objects) and annotations cover safety, but there is no output schema. The description does not indicate what the fetch returns (e.g., full item details) or clarify what 'item' means in this domain. Given the large sibling list, the description is adequate but not complete.

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 has 100% description coverage for article_id, stating 'the id of the item,' so the schema fully documents the parameter. The description 'Fetch an item' adds no further meaning beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'Fetch an item' uses a clear verb ('fetch') and a resource ('item'), but the resource is generic and doesn't specify what kind of item. It does not distinguish itself from related tools like get_item_position or list_items, and is almost a restatement of the tool name 'get_item'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that it fetches a single item by ID, nor does it reference sibling tools like search_items or list_items for other use cases. The context is entirely implied by the tool name and schema.

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