Item details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral context the annotations can't: skills are checked against the logged-in character with training time for gaps, and prices are optional/external. It does not disclose the cost of a batch call, caching, or how fuzzy name resolution behaves on a miss.

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 front-loaded sentence that leads with the core promise ('Everything about one or more items in one call') then enumerates the returned facets. The long comma list is dense but every element is a distinct capability an agent would want; nothing is filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return contents, and it does so thoroughly across eight facets including the character-dependent skill check. What remains missing is modest: how fuzzy matching failures surface and whether batching more than 10 is possible, but the essential contract is conveyed.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description adds only light reinforcement by naming 'formatted attributes', required skills, variants and 'optionally Jita prices', which maps loosely to attributes, character and include_market without adding syntax or defaults.

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 names a concrete resource (items, singular or plural, by name or type id) and enumerates the specific payload it returns: category/group, meta level, volume, attributes, skills, variants, blueprint materials, market data. An agent can tell this is a deep single-item detail lookup rather than a search. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like search_items or lookup, which keeps it from a 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?

Usage is implied by the enumerated payload rather than stated: an agent infers this is the tool for full item detail. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no note that search_items should be used first to resolve fuzzy names, and no mention of the 10-item cap as a batching constraint (that lives only in the schema).

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