Get Company Item by SKU

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., no mention of null returns, caching, or permissions). It does not contradict annotations but also does not enrich them.

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 extremely concise (two sentences), front-loaded with the main action, and lists parameters in a clear list format. No redundant or unnecessary information.

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 read-only tool with fully documented schema and annotations, the description provides adequate information. It does not mention return format (e.g., object or null), but given the lack of output schema and low complexity, this is acceptable. Could specify that the item may not exist, but overall complete enough.

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%, with both parameters having descriptions. The description repeats the parameter names and types without adding new meaning (e.g., format, constraints, or examples). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it returns a saved item matching a given SKU for a company, using specific verb 'Returns' and resource 'saved item'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_item (by ID) and get_items_by_skus (multiple items), as the name and scope are specific.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_item or get_items_by_skus. The description implies it's for a single item by SKU, but does not state exclusions or comparison with other tools.

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