item-service-search-items

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a safe read, and the description adds concrete response-size context about the facet payload. However, that same 96%/default-off detail is already stated in the includeFacets schema description, so the tool-level text largely repeats structured data rather than adding new behavior (e.g., pagination limits, default database behavior).

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 sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, followed by the single most important behavioral caveat. No filler and nothing buried.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no output schema, the description addresses the key payload gotcha but says nothing about result shape, pagination semantics, or default database behavior. Adequate given the rich schema coverage, but not fully complete.

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%, with each of the 8 parameters documented (page, term, facet, fields, database, pageSize, includeFacets, includeStandardTemplateFields), so the baseline is 3. The description only elaborates on includeFacets, which the schema already covers, adding no new parameter meaning.

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 (Search) and resource (Sitecore items) and pins the transport (ItemService RESTful API), which implicitly separates it from the GraphQL-based authoring-search sibling. It never names or contrasts an alternative, so the agent must still infer which search tool to pick.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance, despite several search-like siblings (authoring-search, indexing-find-item, provider-get-item, search-site-pages). The only conditional phrasing ('rarely what the caller is after') concerns the includeFacets parameter, not tool selection.

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