qb_search_items

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: matching is case-insensitive and spans four distinct fields including article/manufacturer code, which an agent could not guess from the schema. It stays silent on result capping / pagination behavior, which keeps it out of the top band.

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 the verb and the resource, with no filler or tautology. The hard-wrapped line formatting introduces minor noise but no wasted content; a single clause on defaults or result caps would have been a better use of the space than the return-field list.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return-value sentence is partly redundant and the description did not need to enumerate type/price/income account/tax code. With three parameters at 0% schema coverage and no annotations gaps to hide behind, the missing explanation of `include_inactive` and `max_results` leaves the definition just adequate rather than 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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it only covers `query` (well, including its matching fields). `max_results` and especially `include_inactive` are left entirely undefined — the description never says whether inactive items are hidden by default, which is behaviorally significant for a search tool. It also spends its remaining clause on return values, which the output schema already provides.

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 and resource ('Searches the item list') and goes further to define exactly what `query` matches against (name, full name, manufacturer part number, description), which unambiguously separates it from siblings like qb_search_customers or qb_list_vendors. It also names the returned fields, so an agent knows this is a read/lookup tool over item master data.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb 'Searches' and the matching semantics, so an agent can infer it is for locating items by partial text. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement about when to prefer this over listing or over qb_create_item, and no note that an empty `query` (the default) presumably lists everything. Nothing is misleading, but nothing steers selection either.

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