get_items_by_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond restating the endpoint and path parameter, such as what is returned, error behavior, or any auth requirements.

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 brief and front-loaded, with no filler or redundant prose. The endpoint and parameter are presented in a clear three-line structure, though the brevity borders on under-specification.

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?

With annotations, an output schema, and one required parameter, the description is sufficient to attempt a basic call. However, it lacks semantic definition of 'items' and does not route agents away from the many more specific get_items_by_id_* sibling tools, leaving an incomplete picture.

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 0%, so the description must define the 'id' parameter, but it only says 'Path parameter.' This adds minimal value beyond the input schema and does not explain what the ID refers to, its format, or any constraints.

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 resource ('api items') and the operation ('Get'), and the included endpoint GET /api/items/{id} clarifies that this fetches one item by ID. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_items_by_id_cover because it is the base item-by-id endpoint, though 'items' remains semantically 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 guidance about when to use this tool versus the many sibling get_items_by_id_* tools. The description does not mention alternatives such as get_items_by_id_cover, get_items_by_id_download, or get_items_by_id_file_by_fileid, nor does it explain that this is the base metadata fetch.

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