catalog_get_catalog_item

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description contributes nothing beyond that, only repeating the GET path, and does not mention whether unpublished/entitled items are visible or what happens for an unknown ID.

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?

Three short sentences, but the first two are near-identical restatements of each other and the third is just the HTTP route, so there is noticeable redundancy without added information.

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 simple read-by-ID call with annotations and a fully documented schema, this is minimally adequate. With no output schema, a description of what the returned catalog item contains (or the effect of expand/expandProjects) would have been valuable and 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 100%, so the schema already documents id, expand, and expandProjects. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline expectation at this coverage level.

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: fetch a single catalog item by ID. However, it does not differentiate itself from close siblings such as catalog_get_catalog_items, catalog_get_catalog_item_for_admin, or catalog_get_versions, so the agent cannot resolve ambiguity from the description alone.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus the admin variant or the list endpoint, and no prerequisites mentioned (auth scope, whether the item must be released/visible to the caller). Usage is only implied by the name.

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