search_items

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

The description discloses no behavioral aspects beyond what annotations already provide. It does not mention that the tool accepts a complex request body, how results are returned, or any side effects. Given the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description adds no additional context.

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 brief at two words, which is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It lacks any structural elements like examples or explanatory sentences, making it too terse to be useful.

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?

The description fails to compensate for the complex body parameter and the lack of an output schema. The body is an array of objects with no defined structure in the schema, and the description offers no clue about how to formulate a search query. This is completely inadequate for an API search tool.

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 schema provides descriptions for all parameters, reaching 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-level information, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The body parameter remains opaque ('as defined by the bexio API'), but the schema already handles parameter documentation.

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 'Search items' is a direct restatement of the tool name, adding no new information about scope, search criteria, or what constitutes an item. It is essentially tautological, providing no more clarity than the name itself.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternative search or list tools. No context distinguishes it from the many sibling tools like 'search_contacts' or 'list_items', and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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