Get a Ballmac UI item

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true). The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation context: source is only returned for Pro items when the server holds BALLMAC_LICENSE_KEY, the `licence` field signals this, and includeSource=false yields a shorter answer. It stops short of describing failure behavior for unknown names or response size.

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 scope statement, then the return inventory, then the licence caveat, then the includeSource tip. Dense but every clause carries information; only the field enumeration runs slightly long.

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 description must describe returns and it does so thoroughly, plus it flags the licence-gated source. Remaining gaps are error behavior for an invalid name and any indication of response size for large items.

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% for both parameters, so the description carries the burden. It explains includeSource well (false = shorter answer), but `name` is never characterized — no format, ID vs slug, or lookup semantics — leaving the required parameter undocumented in both schema and prose.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('Everything about one item') and enumerates the exact payload the agent receives: description, import line, props, keyboard behaviour, dependencies, composition hints, template pages, source. That clearly separates it from list_items/search_items, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'Everything about one item' signals the deep-fetch tool versus the list/search siblings, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs get_examples, search_items or get_install_command. The only concrete guidance is the includeSource tradeoff, which is parameter-level, not tool-level.

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