get_item_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It implies a read-only operation ('get') and lists included detail fields, which adds some transparency. However, it does not disclose error handling (e.g., invalid/nonexistent item), rate limits, or permission requirements, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation support.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action (get), specifies the target (full details for an eBay item), and lists key content areas. Every phrase is informative 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose and included details. It could optionally mention error cases or required authentication, but for a read-only detail fetcher, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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% for the single parameter item_id, which already describes it as an eBay item ID (numeric string). The description's 'by its item ID' adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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: retrieving full details for an eBay item via its item ID, and it enumerates the types of details (price, condition, seller info, specs). This is a specific verb+resource form that effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_products or place_bid.

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 have an item ID and need comprehensive details for that specific item. It provides clear context without explicitly naming alternatives or exclusivity, but the need for an item ID inherently differentiates it from search-oriented tools.

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