Get Item Details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It states it 'gets' details, implying a read-only operation, but never explicitly confirms no side effects or mutation. It also doesn't mention potential rate limits, error conditions, or data volume. The description stays at the purpose level and does not add behavioral context beyond that.

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 concise sentences. The first states purpose and scope; the second provides usage context. No redundant phrases or unnecessary details. Information is front-loaded, making it easy to scan.

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 read-only tool with two fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential usage scenario. It tells the agent when to call it and what to expect (toppings and customization options). It lacks mention of return format, but that's not required without an output schema. The guidance is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described (item_code as product code, restaurant_id as vendor code). The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline for high coverage. No extra syntax or format details are given, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'full details for a menu item', and explicitly lists what's included (topping groups, customization options). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_menu (which likely lists items) and get_restaurant_details (restaurant-level info).

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 description gives a clear when-to-use scenario: 'before adding to cart' when you need to know available toppings/variations. It implies it's not needed otherwise, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like get_menu for basic menu browsing. The guidance is sufficient for an agent to decide.

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