item-service-get-item-descendants

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries most of the burden and does so well: it discloses the client-side per-node sequential walk, the seconds-to-minutes latency on large subtrees, the unpaged result, and the DESCENDANTS_MAX_ITEMS (5000) truncation with notification. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before invoking an expensive traversal.

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?

Five sentences, all front-loaded with the core purpose before the cost/truncation caveats and the alternative-tool routing. Every sentence adds distinct decision-relevant information with no filler.

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 traversal tool with no output schema, the description still conveys return shape (all fields, unpaged), limits (5000-item truncation), and cost profile. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly or avoid it in favor of a sibling is missing.

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 very low: only the nested `fields` option is documented in the schema, while id, version, database, language, includeMetadata, and includeStandardTemplateFields are bare. The description implies a default of returning all fields (which bears on the `fields` option) but adds no syntax, format, or per-parameter meaning, so it only partially compensates.

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 precise verb and resource ('Gets every descendant of a Sitecore item by ID, with all their fields'), including the scope-defining detail that descendants rather than just direct children are returned. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like item-service-get-item-children and authoring-get-item.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative ('For structure only ... authoring-search with a "_path" criterion is one indexed query instead') and the condition that selects it. It also routes the agent to the guide://tool-selection resource for further guidance, leaving no inference required.

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