item_lookup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It correctly identifies that this is a read-only search operation (no destructive hint needed), specifies the search scope (within a vault by title substring), and lists return fields. It does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or ordering, but it is sufficient for understanding the tool's 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word adds value, and it avoids redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given no output schema, the description provides important context about return fields (IDs, titles, categories, vault IDs). It covers the key inputs and functionality. However, it does not mention default behavior for the optional limit parameter or pagination, which could be useful but is not critical for understanding the 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes each parameter (vaultId, query, limit). The description adds little beyond stating the search is by title substring, which is already in the schema description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action (search), resource (items within a 1Password vault), and criteria (by title substring). It also lists the return fields, making the purpose unambiguous. Sibling tools like item_delete or password_create are distinct, so no confusion.

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 description implies usage when needing to search items by title, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like password_read for specific passwords, or when not to use it. No when-not or alternative recommendations are given.

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