get_feed_item_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. 'Get' indicates a read-only operation, and 'full item details' suggests a comprehensive response, but it does not disclose behavior on missing items, the exact return structure, or the timezone formatting effect (though the schema mentions timeZone). Basic transparency is present, but richer context would be helpful.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and required inputs. Every word contributes, with no redundancy or 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?

This is a relatively simple detail-retrieval tool with only three parameters and no nested objects. The description, combined with full schema coverage and clear sibling context, is adequate for an agent to understand when and how to invoke it. However, it does not describe the return value structure, though no output schema exists; leaving some ambiguity, but the tool's simplicity limits the need.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter already documented (id, feedId, timeZone). The description restates the need for feed ID and feed item ID but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 states the tool retrieves full item details given two specific identifiers (feed ID and feed item ID). This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_feeds, get_feed_items, and search_feed_items, which focus on listing or searching.

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 usage when you already have the feed ID and feed item ID and need the full details for a specific item. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the 'given the feed ID and feed item ID' prerequisite makes the intended context clear, especially against sibling context.

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