get_item_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explains the resolution logic and that it combines multiple data sources. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or behavior when no parameters are provided or when lookup fails.

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 concise: two sentences plus a bullet list. Information is front-loaded with the core purpose. The bullet list for resolution order is well-structured. A minor inefficiency is the use of Chinese alongside English, but overall it earns its place.

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?

Given the high schema coverage and existence of an output schema (so return values are documented), the description adequately covers the composite logic and usage context. However, it lacks guidance on error handling or what happens when both name and keyword are absent.

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%, baseline 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the resolution order for name and keyword, the fallback mechanism, and providing examples in parameter descriptions (e.g., 'CTOS-KV-N40DT'). This goes beyond what the schema alone provides.

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 that the tool gets full item info (master, stock balance, prices) by exact name or fuzzy keyword. It distinguishes from siblings like find_items and get_stock_balance, which are more specialized. The verb 'Get' and resource 'item details' are specific.

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 provides explicit resolution order: if name given, direct get; if keyword given, try exact name then fallback to find_items. It implies when to use each parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative tools for partial data.

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