get_item_sources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by mentioning boundedness and truncation warnings, providing behavioral context beyond annotations. It does not contradict annotations.

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 sentence followed by a brief instruction, with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core purpose and fits within the constraints of providing enough guidance without being verbose.

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 two parameters (one required) and an output schema (providing return structure), the description covers the tool's main purpose and usage context with siblings. It lacks parameter-level details for perCategoryLimit, but overall it is adequate for the complexity.

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 50% (only 'item' described). The description does not add meaning for 'perCategoryLimit', which is undocumented in schema. It only mentions 'bounded' but does not explain the parameter's role. The agent gains no additional insight from the description.

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 function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('bounded Old School RuneScape Wiki acquisition overview'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning truncation warnings and directing to find_shop or find_drop_sources.

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 explicitly tells the agent to 'follow truncation warnings with find_shop or find_drop_sources', providing clear guidance on when to use alternatives. This helps the agent decide when this tool is appropriate versus its siblings.

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