item.get

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

The description explicitly declares the operation as read-only ('只读'), which is useful because no annotations are provided. However, it does not disclose any other behavioral details such as how missing or deleted items are handled, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The read-only note meets the minimum transparency bar but nothing more.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple lookup tool, though it leaves out some helpful context captured in other dimensions.

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 one-parameter read operation with an output schema, the description conveys the core action and read-only nature. However, it remains incomplete because it does not clarify when to prefer this over similar siblings like item.view, and it lacks parameter-level guidance. Overall it is adequate but has clear gaps.

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%, and the description does not explain item_id, its expected format, or how it relates to the returned details. The parameter name 'item_id' is reasonably self-explanatory, so the description is not misleading, but it adds no semantic value beyond the bare schema.

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 ('查询' / query) and resource ('闲鱼商品详情' / Xianyu item details), and the explicit '只读' qualifier distinguishes it from mutation siblings like item.delete and item.publish. However, it does not differentiate it from the similarly read-oriented sibling item.view.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of alternatives. Given siblings such as item.view, item.mine, and search.items, the description gives no selection criteria or exclusions. It is not misleading, but it provides no usage direction.

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