get_item

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

The description indicates a read operation without any destructive effects, which is sufficient given no annotations. However, it could be more explicit about being non-destructive and about prerequisites like needing a valid item_id.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and return content. No superfluous words.

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 presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned (comprehensive info including notes). It lacks details on error behavior or edge cases, but is sufficient for a simple retrieval tool.

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 item_id is not described in the schema (0% coverage), and the description does not elaborate on how to obtain or format the ID. The agent is left to infer that item_id is a unique identifier, but no additional context is provided.

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 retrieves everything known about a single Japanese grammar point or word, including the learner's notes. It distinguishes from siblings like add_item (create) and get_practice_pool (list).

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 implies the tool should be used when full details on a specific item are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide when-not guidance. The sibling tools have different purposes, so it is reasonably clear.

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