get_item

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine content context by stating the response includes per-warehouse stock, but says nothing about auth, rate limits, or behavior when an identifier matches nothing.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the identifier rule. No filler, no repetition of the name or annotations.

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 rich annotations and an output schema present, the description need not explain return values or safety. It covers the identifier contract and the payload shape, which is enough to call the tool correctly; only the sibling-routing guidance is absent.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a real constraint the schema does not express: the schema makes both params nullable with no required list, while the description mandates exactly one of item_id or sku. That is meaningful guidance the structured fields lack.

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?

Specific verb and resource: returns full detail for one item, plus the scope of the payload (stock per warehouse/location). This distinguishes it from list_items and search_items, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

"Give exactly one of item_id or sku" is an invocation constraint, not a when-to-use rule. The description never says when to pick this over check_availability or search_items, leaving the routing decision entirely to inference.

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