get_item_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose the return fields and supports example query patterns, but it does not mention error handling, exact-name matching behavior, data freshness, or limitations beyond 'tradeable items.' The read-only nature is only implied by 'Returns.'

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 opening sentence is dense and front-loaded, but the eight example bullets include repetitive variants (30/90/180-day changes) and could be trimmed significantly. While examples are helpful, the description is longer than necessary.

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 simple lookup tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is fairly complete: it lists the output categories and provides a wide range of example queries. It lacks explicit output structure and error-condition details, but overall it gives adequate context for an agent to understand when and how to use the tool.

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 100% of parameters with clear descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds example queries, but it introduces ambiguity by showing 'Compare the price of a dragon scimitar and a rune scimitar' while itemName is a single string parameter, leaving multi-item handling unclear.

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 opens with a specific verb 'Returns' and details the resource: current price, price trends, category, image, and examine for tradeable Grand Exchange items. This clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from the sibling get_item_price_history, which focuses on historical price series.

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 examples provide clear usage contexts, such as single item queries, price comparisons, percentage changes over 30/90/180 days, and retrieving description/icon/id. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer get_item_price_history or mention exclusions, relying on implied context rather than direct alternative guidance.

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