Get an item

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral value by disclosing that includeChildren expands the result to child notes and attachments, and by explaining the practical purpose of those attachments. This goes beyond what annotations alone provide.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the includeChildren guidance is placed where it directly supports the invocation decision. Every sentence contributes value.

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 read-only single-item fetch with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the main use case and the key child-inclusion scenario. It could be slightly more complete by acknowledging zotero_get_item_children as the alternative when only children are needed, but this is a minor gap given the rich schema and annotations.

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%, giving the baseline of 3, but the description adds meaningful guidance for includeChildren by explaining that it is the fastest route to an attachment key for PDF/full-text access. This practical tip goes beyond the schema's generic 'Also return child notes and attachments' wording.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch one item by key with all of its metadata.' It clearly identifies the tool as a single-item retrieval operation, distinguishing it from search, list, and child-only operations. The includeChildren mention further clarifies its scope relative to child-focused siblings.

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 provides clear usage context: use includeChildren to fetch notes and attachments, and it is 'the quickest way to find the attachment key needed to read a PDF or its full text.' It does not explicitly contrast this tool with zotero_get_item_children or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5, but the practical guidance is strong.

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