vinted_item

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful context by stating 'Public data, sourced from Vinted's own server-rendered item page,' which reassures the agent about accessibility and origin. However, it omits potential edge cases such as behavior for invalid/removed IDs, rate limits, or whether the response structure varies. This is adequate but not rich.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, there is a slight redundancy: 'A single Vinted listing's detail.' is immediately followed by 'Returns a single Vinted listing's detail:...'. This could be tightened into one sentence without losing meaning, but overall it is concise and easy to scan.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is sufficiently complete: it names the resource, lists expected return fields, and notes the data is public. It does not explain error handling or response format, but for a simple detail-fetch tool this is not a critical gap.

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 already covers the only parameter 'id' fully with a clear description: 'Numeric Vinted item ID, from a /vinted/catalog result's id field.' The tool description does not add any further semantic detail about the parameter. Per the rubric, with 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3, and the description earns no extra credit here.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Returns a single Vinted listing's detail' and then enumerates the exact fields returned (title, description, brand, size, condition, material, color, price, category breadcrumb, photos). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like vinted_catalog, vinted_brand, or vinted_member, which operate on different resources or collections.

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 clearly states it retrieves a single listing's detail, implying it should be used when an agent has a specific item ID and needs its full information. The parameter schema reinforces this by explaining the ID comes from a /vinted/catalog result. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclude other use cases, so it falls short of a 5.

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