common-get-item-field-by-id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'gets' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects like: whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if the ID doesn't exist, whether there are rate limits, what format the returned data takes, or whether this operation is cached. For a retrieval tool with 6 parameters and no annotation coverage, this represents significant gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 that efficiently states the core function. It's appropriately sized for a retrieval operation, though it could be slightly more specific about what 'item fields' refers to in this context. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what constitutes an 'item' in this system, what 'fields' typically contain, or how the different return types affect the output format. The agent would need to infer much of this from context or trial-and-error, which is problematic for a tool with multiple configuration options and no structured output documentation.

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%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description mentions 'gets item fields as either names or fields or template fields' which loosely relates to the 'returnType' parameter's enum values, but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting of parameter documentation.

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 states the tool 'gets item fields... by its ID', which provides a basic verb+resource combination. However, it's vague about what 'item fields' specifically are and doesn't clearly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'common-get-item-field-by-path' which appears to serve a similar purpose but uses a path instead of ID. The description doesn't explain what makes this tool unique among the many 'get' operations in the sibling list.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With a sibling tool 'common-get-item-field-by-path' that appears functionally similar but uses a different identifier type, the description should explicitly indicate when to use ID-based lookup versus path-based lookup. There's also no mention of prerequisites, dependencies, or typical use cases for this specific retrieval method.

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