get

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

The description states the tool returns a 'Full record' but omits behavioral details like read-only nature, error handling, authentication requirements, or rate limits. With no annotations, this is insufficient disclosure.

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 a single, dense sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and content. No wasted words.

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 get-by-ID tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the basic return content but lacks details on error scenarios, pagination, or return format. It is moderately complete given the tool's simplicity.

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 only parameter 'id' is described as 'one item id' in the description, adding context beyond the schema's bare type string. However, it does not specify the expected format or source of the ID, so coverage remains incomplete.

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 tool retrieves a full record for a single item ID, specifying the content includes 'Shopify's claim (sources, dev_docs, caveats, customer_proof) + Rick's lens.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'query' or 'customers', though 'Rick's lens' is somewhat 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no examples, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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