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 behavioral burden. It does note the tool 'Returns a list of items' which implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't disclose max page depth, rate limits, result count caps, or pagination behavior beyond what the schema already states. 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?

The description is a single efficient sentence that states purpose and return content in under 25 words with zero wasted text. It's front-loaded with the action verb and resource. Could marginally add sibling differentiation but is otherwise concise.

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?

With 11 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the high-level purpose but misses any guidance on how the filters interact or what the default behavior is. Given good schema coverage and no nested objects, a full 'list' tool with pagination is moderately complex; the description is acceptable but would benefit from noting that filters combine additively or similar.

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 100%, hitting the >80% baseline for a score of 3. All 11 parameters already have individual descriptions in the schema, so the tool description adds little param-level value. However, the status_ids parameter uses inline-code style for the enum mapping which is already embedded in the schema, so no compensatory info is needed.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Search for items on the Vinted marketplace') and clearly distinguishes its purpose from siblings like get_item_details, get_user_profile, and search_brands. It also summarizes the return set (prices, brands, sizes, seller info), making the tool's scope immediately obvious.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. There's no mention of alternatives (e.g., search_brands for brand lookups, get_item_details for single-item info) or exclusions. Placement of intended use is absent.

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