Get Item Details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It uses the read-only verb 'Retrieve' and enumerates the returned content: full description, aspects, images, shipping, return policy, seller, and location. It does not mention error behavior or auth, but the read-only nature and expected payload are clearly communicated.

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 short paragraphs with no filler. The purpose statement is front-loaded, and the second sentence earns its place by adding workflow context and return content.

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 output schema exists and the description covers intended usage plus the main return contents, the definition is nearly complete. It does not mention possible errors or rate limits, but for a single-item retrieval tool with a well-described schema this is a minor gap.

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%, and the schema already documents item_id's required format and fieldgroups' allowed values, so the description adds little parameter-level meaning. The phrase 'shaped detail record' ties loosely to fieldgroups but does not go beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve the shaped detail record for a single eBay item.' It distinguishes itself from the sibling search_ebay by clarifying this is the follow-up tool for a single item's deeper details, not for 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?

Explicitly states when to use it: 'Use after search_ebay surfaces something worth a closer look.' This names the preceding sibling, provides the intended workflow, and implies that search_ebay is for the initial broad search. No inference is required.

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