search_items

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses local vs. category-path filtering per section, that paginated results can move or repeat, and the absence of reliable timestamps, exhaustive coverage, and price-drop detection. These are exactly the operational caveats an agent needs before trusting results.

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 most important constraint (immediate, one page, no watch) is front-loaded, and each subsequent line adds a distinct caveat rather than repeating. The telegraphic fragment style is dense but slightly reads as notes rather than prose.

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 search tool with no output schema, it covers the behavioral limits (pagination instability, coverage gaps) that would otherwise mislead a caller. It omits any indication of the result shape and the price-filter semantics, which are the remaining 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%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does: it explains section semantics (all excludes Lavoro), the order default, and that ordering is not filtering. It says nothing about min_price/max_price, page, or limit semantics, leaving a meaningful portion of the nested query object undocumented.

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?

"Immediate one-page Italy/EUR search" names a specific verb and a tightly constrained scope, and "no watch or Telegram message" distinguishes it from the sibling family of watch-management tools. It stops short of a crisp one-line statement of what it returns, but an agent can tell what it is for.

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 "no watch" phrasing implies this is the one-shot alternative to create_watch, and it instructs the caller to set section and order explicitly and warns that newest is ordering rather than a time filter. However, it never names an alternative tool or states an explicit when-not-to-use condition, leaving the routing inference implicit.

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