indexing-find-item

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

The readOnlyHint annotation covers safety, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the return shape (Skip, First, Returned, HasMore, Items) and the critical fact that Content Search reports no total, so HasMore governs paging. It does not cover permissions/auth requirements or failure behavior on a missing index, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then routing guidance, then paging/format notes; every sentence carries information. The sentences are somewhat long and run-on, but nothing is redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly fills that gap by naming the returned fields and the HasMore paging signal, and it resolves routing against the crowded sibling set. It stops short of explaining index availability, auth, or error cases, but is complete enough to call correctly.

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 75% and the schema itself is unusually rich (field naming conventions, numeric suffixes, filter enum, range syntax). The description adds only the ISO 8601 date format note, which the schema's 'value' description already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (Finds) plus resource and mechanism (items via the Sitecore Content Search API over SPE), and explicitly distinguishes itself from candidates an agent might otherwise pick. An agent can tell it apart from authoring-search, item-service-search-items, and query-graphql without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly names two preferred alternatives (authoring-search, query-graphql-<schema>), gives reasons for each (no SPE, '_path' subtree scoping, real totals, cheaper for published content), and states the exact condition for reaching for this tool. Nothing is left to inference.

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