Detalhes de um item

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does useful work by disclosing the shape of the response (palette with hex + screen percentage, media types, conditional tool/skill fields), which substitutes for the missing output schema, but it never states that the operation is read-only, what happens on a bad id/slug, or whether anything is fetched remotely.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the payload enumeration and ending with the accepted input forms. Dense but every clause adds information; the parenthetical tag categories are slightly list-heavy yet still earn their place.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description steps in by enumerating returned fields and the accepted identifier formats, which is most of what an agent needs for a single-parameter lookup. Remaining gaps are failure behavior and sibling routing, both minor for a read-only detail fetch.

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 single parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate, and it does: it spells out that 'target' accepts a recent.design/i/... URL, a legacy godly URL, a 7-letter id, or a slug. That is genuinely additive meaning the bare string schema lacks, though no format precedence or validation rules are given.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Detalhes completos de um item') and then enumerates exactly what those details contain: description, creator, original link, tags by type, extracted palette, media list, and for tools/skills price, links and install command. An agent knows precisely what comes back. It does not name which sibling to use instead (e.g. godly_media for media-only), so it stops short of 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the enumerated payload makes clear this is the call for full detail on one known item, and the accepted input formats imply the item must already be identified. There is no explicit 'use this when X, use godly_media/godly_search when Y' routing against the five siblings.

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