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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the required scope (items.read), which is genuinely useful and not in structured data. It says nothing about pagination behavior or result shape beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 compact sentences with the search scope front-loaded and the prerequisite second. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Seven parameters including a free-form nested filters object and a dual-mode cursor/numeric offset, with no output schema, make this a fairly complex call. The description leaves pagination semantics and the shape of results entirely to the schema, which is rich but not self-explanatory for the offset dual-mode. Adequate but thin for the tool's complexity.

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 100%, so the schema already documents limit, offset, order, direction, field, embed and the filter keys. The description's mention of name/reference/type loosely maps to the filters object but adds no syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load.

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 names a specific verb and resource (search catalog items) and the fields searched (name, reference, type), which makes it distinguishable from list_items or get_item by implication. It never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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 on when to use this instead of sellsy_list_items or sellsy_search. The only contextual statement is a scope prerequisite ('Needs items.read'), which is an auth condition, not a usage rule. An agent must infer that this is the filtered variant of list_items.

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