get_item_details

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses fuzzy matching behavior, the argument format, and the return structure with field names. However, it doesn't specify error handling for unknown items, which would be helpful but not critical.

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 well-structured with sections for usage, fuzzy matching, args, returns, and examples. It's concise for the information provided—every section adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the simple single-parameter input and the detailed explanation of behavior and return fields, the description is complete for an AI agent to select and use the tool. It covers what the tool does, how to invoke it, and what to expect in response.

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 provides only a type string with no description (0% coverage). The description thoroughly explains item_name with accepted formats (display name, internal name, fuzzy), provides examples, and clarifies case-insensitivity. It fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 uses 'Get' as a specific verb with the resource 'detailed item information by item name.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools focused on players, matches, and heroes. No ambiguity.

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?

It explicitly states 'Use this when users ask about items' and provides three query examples. It doesn't list exclusions or alternative tools, but the scope is clear and no other sibling handles item details.

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