Get item details

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only lookup by saying 'dump' and details the data categories returned. However, it does not mention error conditions, response size or latency, or any side effects. For a simple get operation this is adequate but not deeply transparent.

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?

Two sentences with no waste: the first states purpose and content, the second gives usage timing. Information is front-loaded and easily scannable by an agent.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns and when to use it, which is the essential context. It lacks explicit return-shape details and error handling, but those gaps are minor given the simplicity and the sibling context.

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 sola parameter typeId has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never references it by name. The phrases 'one item type' and 'inspect candidates' imply the parameter is the ID of a search result, but format, requiredness, and mapping to candidates are left implicit. The self-explanatory name helps, but the description does not fully compensate.

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 uses 'Full dogma attribute dump for one item type' as a specific action on a specific resource, and lists the returned content (fitting needs, slots, damages, resistances, skills required). It differentiates itself from siblings by noting 'after search' and 'one item type', separating it from search, fit evaluation, and pricing.

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?

It explicitly instructs 'Use after search to inspect candidates,' giving a clear workflow context relative to the search sibling. It implies this tool is for examining individual search results rather than evaluating or pricing fits, though it does not name those exclusions directly. This is sufficient for an agent to choose correctly in most cases.

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