Get item

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It usefully discloses that referenced trader and item ids are resolved to names, which is a meaningful behavioral detail beyond what the schema shows. It does not address not-found behavior or response shape, but for a read-only lookup the disclosed behavior is reasonably transparent.

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?

Two tightly written sentences lead with the core action and resource, then list the most informative result contents. Every clause adds value; there is no filler or repetition.

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?

The description gives a good high-level account of the return contents, which matters because there is no output schema. Combined with fully documented input parameters, an agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly. It stops short of enumerating all possible item property categories or error cases, but it is complete for typical use.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well documented with types, enums, defaults, and examples. The description adds little beyond saying lookup can be by id or name, which is already captured in the idOrName parameter description. This meets the baseline for schema-bearing descriptions.

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 clearly identifies the operation: retrieving full detail for a single item by id or name. It also enumerates what those details include (flea market pricing, trader offers, weapon/armor/ammo properties), which distinguishes it from search_items and get_item_price_history.

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 implies the right usage context: when you need comprehensive, item-level detail for a known id or name. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the scope is clear enough that an agent can infer this is the targeted lookup versus broader search or price-history tools.

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