Get item

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only that custom fields are included, which largely restates the withDetails parameter rather than disclosing anything new (no error behavior for unknown ids, no note on what happens when custom fields are absent).

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?

A single compact sentence with the resource and the id-based scoping front-loaded; nothing is wasted or buried.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with full annotations and complete schema coverage, the description is sufficient: it says what is fetched and that custom fields are included. Minor gap is the lack of any indication of failure mode for a nonexistent or inaccessible item id.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both itemId and withDetails are already documented in the schema, including the default of true. The description's mention of 'custom fields' loosely maps to withDetails but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case meaning beyond the schema.

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 clear verb ('Get') and resource ('item'), and disambiguates what an item can be (membership, ticket, donation). It implicitly separates itself from helloasso_list_items by saying 'by id', but never names a sibling explicitly.

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 only implied: the 'by id' phrasing signals single-record retrieval as opposed to listing. There is no statement of when to prefer this over helloasso_list_items or how it relates to helloasso_get_order / helloasso_get_payment for the same underlying data.

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