ipa_item

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses this is a read operation and precisely what content comes back, including that immersion/NA are parsed from the tag and that PSF is per-objective and laser power per-line. It omits not-found/error behavior and whether name lookups can be ambiguous, which for a zero-annotation tool is the remaining gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the payoff ('everything the site knows about one item') before the field enumeration, and the sibling routing sentence is placed last where it belongs. The parenthetical field list is long but each element tells the agent something about coverage, so it largely earns its length.

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 no output schema, the enumeration of returned sections effectively substitutes for one and is complete enough for an agent to decide whether this tool answers its question. The missing piece is identifier handling for the sole required parameter and failure behavior, which matters for a lookup-by-name 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single parameter id_or_name is never mentioned in the description. The agent gets no hint whether an ID or a display name is expected, how names are normalized, or what happens if the name is ambiguous — arguably the most important ambiguity for a lookup tool.

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?

States a specific retrieval: 'Everything the site knows about one item, structured', then enumerates the exact resource sub-types returned (objectives, light paths, laser lines, outline, booking, measurements). It explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling ipa_page ('for the prose'), so an agent can distinguish the structured-record tool from the prose tool without opening a schema.

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 gives one clear routing rule: use ipa_page when you want prose, ipa_item when you want structured data. However no guidance is offered on when to prefer ipa_item over the many overlapping siblings (ipa_equipment, ipa_psf, ipa_laser_power, ipa_find, ipa_search), even though the description implies this tool aggregates the same measurements those siblings cover. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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