search_project_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. 'Search' loosely implies a read operation, but the description doesn't state what items are searched, what results look like, or whether any state changes. No side effects or return format are mentioned.

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 short but not concise in a useful way—it is under-specified. It lacks essential details and isn't front-loaded with beneficial information. 'Expanded operation' is unnecessary and contributes no value.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, this is completely inadequate. It fails to explain search behavior, result handling, or how it differs from sibling tools, making it nearly impossible for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 context indicates zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds nothing about parameters, but with none to explain, the baseline of 4 applies. However, it doesn't clarify how a search can operate without input, which slightly reduces its helpfulness.

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 literally restates the tool name: 'search project items.' It adds no specific verb or resource detail beyond the name, and doesn't distinguish from siblings like list_project_items or find_project_item_by_name. 'Premiere Pro expanded operation' is vague filler.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any use case, exclusions, or alternative tools, leaving the agent to guess which search-like tool is appropriate.

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