Get acquisition item

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds 'Read-only,' which is redundant with the annotation. It discloses no additional behavioral traits such as error handling, authorization requirements, or side effects. Since annotations cover the safety profile, the description's contribution is minimal but not misleading.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences ('Retrieve a single item within an acquisition. Read-only.') that are front-loaded with the action. Every word earns its place with no filler.

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 two-parameter read-only fetch with no output schema, the description is adequate. It doesn't describe return values or not-found behavior, but these are arguably unnecessary for such a straightforward tool. It lacks explicit sibling differentiation, but the scope is clear. Slightly below a 5 because it misses the chance to note that acquisitionItemId is scoped by id.

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%: both parameters (id and acquisitionItemId) are fully described as GUIDs. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter types, formats, or relationships beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Retrieve a single item') and the resource ('within an acquisition'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_acquisition (retrieves entire acquisition) and get_item (retrieves an item outside acquisition context).

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 implies when to use this tool (when you have an acquisition ID and item ID and need a specific item), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion scenarios. For example, it doesn't say 'use get_item for items not in an acquisition,' so it lacks the 'when-not' guidance seen in higher-tier examples.

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