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 covered. The description's 'does not submit/take' statement largely restates that, though it does add the useful return-content hint (원문 링크) that annotations cannot convey.

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 with no filler; the positive capability (details + source link) is front-loaded and the negative constraint follows immediately.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned and confirms no side effects, which is about the right amount of context. It leaves the id format and the relationship to the search/list siblings implicit.

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?

There is one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry weight; it does clarify that the item is either an assignment or a quiz, which matches the 'assign|quiz' id pattern. It still never explains the required id format or where an id comes from, so the compensation is only partial.

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 names a specific resource (과제/퀴즈, i.e. assignment/quiz) and what it returns (details plus the original source link), so an agent knows this is a detail-fetch, not a list or search. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like search_items or list_materials.

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 clause '실제 제출/응시는 수행하지 않습니다' implies this is for inspection only and rules out submission/exam-taking intent, which is useful boundary-setting. But it gives no positive when-to-use guidance and never routes the agent to search_items or other siblings for discovery.

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