item_view

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose something useful beyond the name: the tool reads the live page response and returns image and seller fields. It says nothing about auth requirements, blocking/rate limits, failure modes when the page lacks the item, or whether the call is purely read-only.

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?

A single compact sentence with the retrieval mechanism and return content front-loaded in a parenthetical. No filler, though the parenthetical could be split into a clearer when-to-use statement.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not strictly required, and the description still names the notable payload fields. The critical missing piece is routing versus item_get in a sibling set that contains both, plus any note on browser-fetch fragility.

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?

Only one parameter (item_id) with 0% schema description coverage; the description says nothing about its expected format (numeric ID, slug, or URL). The parameter name is largely self-explanatory, which prevents a lower score, but no format or validation guidance is added.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('查看商品详情') and adds a meaningful qualifier ('浏览器视角', reading the page response) that implies a distinct retrieval mechanism. However, it never names or distinguishes itself from the sibling item_get, which likely returns the same resource via another path, so the agent must guess between them.

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?

'浏览器视角' hints that this is browser-page-based rather than API-based, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative (item_get, search_items, item_list). The user must infer the choice from a two-character qualifier.

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