get_item

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It lists the kinds of data returned, which is mild return-content disclosure, but says nothing about read-only safety, authentication, caching, or error behavior (e.g., unknown item_id). Significant gaps for a getter with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single compact sentence with no wasted words. It is reasonably front-loaded, though as an enumeration of return fields rather than a purpose statement it is less punchy than it could be.

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 one-parameter getter with no output schema, the enumeration of returned content adds genuine value since nothing else documents the response. But it leaves the required item_id unexplained and gives no error or usage context, so it is only partially complete.

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?

There is a single required parameter (item_id) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it or its expected format. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap at all.

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 conveys that it returns item details and enumerates what those details contain (bodies, animations, colors/variants, separate-color parts, special animations), which is more than a pure name restatement. However, it is a noun phrase with no explicit action verb and never differentiates itself from siblings like search_items or list_categories. The purpose is inferable but vague.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_items (to find items) or preview_character. No prerequisites, no context of use. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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