loc_item_detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a list of returned fields but does not disclose potential error behavior, response format, or rate limits. Since the annotation covers the core behavior, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a useful list of return contents. Every word contributes meaningful information with no redundancy.

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 one-parameter detail retrieval tool with readOnly annotations, the description sufficiently covers what the tool returns. It lists the key metadata types not obvious from the tool name, though it omits details about error conditions or response structure, which is not critical given the simplicity.

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 schema fully documents the single 'id' parameter with a description ('Item identifier (from search results)'), giving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond that, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 a specific action ('Get full metadata') on a specific resource ('Library of Congress item'), and names the major return fields. This distinguishes it from search-oriented siblings like loc_search, which are about discovery rather than retrieving a single item's details.

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 usage after obtaining an identifier, and the schema parameter notes 'from search results', but the description itself does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. It provides only implied context.

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