catalog_get_item

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Fetch a single catalog item' conveys a read-only, non-destructive operation. However, it does not disclose behavior for missing/unknown ids, whether api is required when multiple catalogs exist, or any auth requirements.

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 tight and effective: one clear purpose sentence plus two parameter bullets with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded, and every line earns its place.

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 two-parameter fetch with an output schema available, the description covers both parameters and the main usage path. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit behavior when api is omitted while multiple catalogs are configured.

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 0%, but the description documents both parameters meaningfully: item_id is tied to a search result's `id` field, and api selects the catalog with an optionality condition. This adds real value beyond the bare schema types.

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 a single catalog item by its id.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling search tools by targeting a single item via the catalog's own identifier rather than a query.

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 gives clear context: item_id is the identifier returned in a search result's `id` field, which implies this tool is used after catalog_search or smart_search. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of a 5.

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