search_items

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the operation is a lookup and that returned keys are stable, which is non-obvious. It does not explain matching semantics, filtering behavior, or side effects, leaving some behavior implicit.

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 short sentences, with the first one front-loading the core action and the second adding valuable context about stable keys. There is no filler or duplication of the tool name.

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?

The description clearly positions the tool as the first-step resolver for item names and explains that other tools consume its returned keys. However, with four undocumented optional parameters and no annotations, an agent still has to infer how to use kind, limit, and watchlist. The output schema helps with return shape, so the definition is adequate but not 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%, and the description only elaborates the 'by name' aspect, which maps to query. No explanation is given for kind, limit, or watchlist, and the enum values are left to domain knowledge. This is the biggest gap in the definition.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Find tracked items by name' and adds the key outcome, 'returning the item keys other tools take.' The stable-key framing distinguishes it from price, listing, and watchlist sibling tools, making its role unmistakable.

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 phrase 'Resolve a user's wording to a key here first' is an explicit when-to-use instruction: it is the resolution step before other tools. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name a competing alternative, but the precedence is clear from sibling context.

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