opensea_collection_search_items

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of clarifying behavior. It covers the search behavior, the matching dimensions (name and trait values), and the returned content (hits with rarity rank and best standing listing). Missing are side-effect/auth/rate-limit/pagination details, but the disclosed behavior is enough to indicate a non-destructive, scoped search.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the action, the search/return details, and a differentiating note. The most important information is front-loaded, and there is no filler.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description states what the user gets back (hits with rarity rank and best standing listing), which is the key for agent selection. It does not mention response pagination or specific item fields, but for a simple 3-parameter search tool the absence of those does not make it incomplete.

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?

The input schema already covers all three parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying that the `query` acts on item name and trait values, which is not obvious from a bare 'Search keyword' annotation. It doesn't add to `slug`/`limit`, but this is sufficient to be a 4.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Search items inside an OpenSea collection,' and fully specifies the scope: a keyword search scoped to one collection, matching on item name and trait values. It also differentiates itself from the sibling `/opensea/collection/{slug}/items` by noting it is narrower and lists everything, so an agent can easily tell them apart.

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 provides good usage context by indicating this is the keyword-search-flavored tool within one collection and contrasts it with the broader list-all-items sibling. However, it does not explicitly list every alternative or state 'when not to use' beyond that single comparison, so it is not a 5.

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