im_get_item_details

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

The description discloses the output (columns, match result, linked exception) but does not address side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, or error handling. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and this is acceptable for a simple read operation but lacks depth.

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 sentence of 19 words, which is concise and front-loaded with the main action. It could be slightly expanded for clarity but is efficiently structured.

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 simple parameter set (1 required) and no output schema, the description adequately specifies the return content. However, it lacks context on potential errors or behavior when the item does not exist, which would improve completeness.

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 the parameter item_id with 100% description, and the tool description adds that the tool returns full details for that item. However, it does not elaborate on the parameter's format or provide examples, so it adds minimal value 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 clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'IntelliMatch item', and specifies the scope 'full details including all columns, match result, and linked exception'. It differentiates from sibling tools like im_get_break_details or im_get_breaks by targeting a specific item's comprehensive data.

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 implicitly suggests using this tool when you need complete details of a single item, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or what alternative tools (e.g., im_get_breaks for break-focused queries) are better suited for other needs.

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