opensea_profile_search_items

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the mechanism (keyword search, matching on item/collection name) and return contents (rarity rank, best standing listing), which goes beyond the schema. However, it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, mention any auth/prerequisites, or describe what happens when no hits are found. The 'Search' verb strongly implies a safe read operation, so this is adequate but not rich.

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 core purpose, followed by behavior and a distinguishing comparison. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or redundant schema restatement. The structural contrast with the sibling is delivered efficiently.

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 a 3-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is largely complete: it states what the tool searches, the matching fields, what the results include, and how it differs from the sibling. It doesn't discuss pagination beyond the `limit` schema hint or describe edge cases (empty results, rate limits), but an agent can invoke it correctly with what is provided. Slight gaps prevent a 5.

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 parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds marginal meaning by noting that `query` matches on 'item and collection name' and that the tool returns rarity and standing listing, which helps an agent understand hit relevance beyond bare property names. This is above baseline but the schema already carries most of the conceptual load.

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?

Description opens with a clear verb-resource pairing: 'Search the NFTs a wallet holds.' It specifies the matching scope (item and collection name), the return fields (rarity rank, best standing listing), and explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling opensea_profile_items tool. An agent can distinguish it 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 the alternative endpoint (`/opensea/profile/{identifier}/items`) and frames this tool as 'narrower,' making the when-to-use distinction clear: use this for keyword-filtered searches of a wallet's holdings rather than the full list. It lacks an explicit 'use this when' phrasing and doesn't cover alternatives beyond the immediate sibling, but the contrast is strong enough for an agent to route correctly.

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