Get Catalog Item Details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds context beyond the annotations by specifying what exactly is returned: 'description, category, variables/questions required to order.' This helps the agent understand the tool's output without contradicting any annotation.

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 extremely concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, an Args block with clear parameter names, and a Returns line. Every sentence carries information, and there is no fluff or repetition of schema fields beyond what is necessary.

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-only retrieval tool with strong annotations and full schema coverage, the description is sufficient. It tells the agent what the tool returns and the key parameters. The only gap is that it doesn't detail the exact structure of the response for the 'json' format, but the response_format parameter already explains that. Overall, it's complete enough for its complexity.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. However, the description adds one key detail not in the schema: 'identifier (string): Catalog item name (partial match) or sys_id'—the 'partial match' behavior is extra semantic information. The response_format parameter is already well described in the schema, so the description's contribution is modest but meaningful.

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's function: 'Get full details of a service catalog item including its variables/form fields.' This is a specific verb+resource+scope, and it distinguishes from siblings like list_catalog_items (which would list multiple items) and submit_catalog_request (which orders). The inclusion of 'variables/form fields' highlights the unique value of this tool.

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—it fetches full details for a single catalog item—but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like list_catalog_items and submit_catalog_request are not referenced. The guidance is embedded in the tool's name and purpose, but no explicit when/when-not or alternative direction is given.

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