get_item_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It doesn't state whether this is a read operation, what happens if an item is unavailable or deleted, whether authentication is required, or any rate-limit considerations. For a GET-style detail tool it's a modest gap, but with zero annotation coverage the description should provide more.

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 that is front-loaded with the purpose and lists the key content areas. No redundancy or filler. Could be slightly more specific but is appropriately concise for the scope of the tool.

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?

The tool is simple (one param, no output schema, no nested objects), and the description covers what the tool retrieves. However, without annotations or behavioral details, the completeness relies on the tool being straightforward. It's adequate for the low complexity but doesn't add the depth that would push it higher.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameter is already documented with type, exclusiveness constraint, and provenance ('from search results'). The description itself doesn't add information about item_id, but the schema fully covers it. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting and the description needs no compensation.

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 verb ('Get detailed information about') with a specific resource ('a specific Vinted item') and names concrete content areas (description, photos, seller info, condition). This is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like search_items (listing/search) and get_user_profile (user-focused).

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 a single-item lookup context but doesn't explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives. It's clear this is for retrieving full details on an already-known item (the item_id param says 'from search results'), but no explicit exclusions or alternative guidance is given. Reasonable but implied usage context.

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