check_item_stolen

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool checks if an item is stolen and gets provenance details, but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, or what happens if the item isn't found. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it appropriately concise and well-structured for its length.

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 complexity (a check operation with provenance details), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral nuances, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'item' and 'provenance details', which loosely relates to 'itemId', but doesn't explain what 'itemId' represents, the purpose of 'sessionId', or any format constraints. With 2 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description adds minimal semantic value.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('check') and resource ('item'), and specifies the outcome ('get its provenance details'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'check_stolen_items_on_character' or 'check_item_recognition', which reduces the score from a perfect 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as how it differs from 'check_stolen_items_on_character' or 'check_item_recognition' in the sibling list. This leaves the agent without clear usage direction.

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