item_view

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the browser-driven approach and anti-risk-control behavior, offering some insight beyond the basic operation. However, it does not detail potential side effects, prerequisites (e.g., login), or reliability implications, leaving gaps.

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 a single concise sentence that packs the core action, the differentiating factor (more complete fields), and a key behavioral trait (anti-risk) without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and highly efficient.

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 one parameter and an output schema, the description adequately covers the main purpose and distinguishes it from item_get. It could mention prerequisites or configuration, but given the tool's simplicity, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description does not add any explanation for the item_id parameter. While the parameter is straightforward, the description fails to compensate for the missing schema description, providing no additional semantic context.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: '浏览器视角查看商品详情' (view product details from browser perspective). It distinguishes itself from the sibling item_get by noting it provides more complete fields and anti-risk-control, making its purpose and differentiation clear.

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 comparative guidance by referencing item_get and stating that this tool has more complete fields and is anti-risk-control. This implies when to use it over alternatives, though it does not explicitly state exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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