search-compendium-items

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: excludes SRD packs, uses real item data (not heuristics), returns minimal fields (id,name,type,uuid,pack,packLabel,img,facets), and ranks premium-first. No destructive or auth details needed for a read tool.

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 concise: two sentences fit all essential information. It front-loads the action and scope, then adds backend and result details. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 optional params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers scope, behavior, result format, and next-step tool. It even references design documentation. All necessary context is present.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 7 parameters. The description adds minor context (e.g., 'use documentType to narrow the item family') but mostly restates schema info. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's purpose: 'find equipment, weapons, armor, consumables, and treasure matching faceted criteria'. It specifies the resource (items/gear) and distinguishes it from sibling search-compendium-* tools (spells, creatures) by emphasizing items and premium packs.

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 advises to 'use documentType to narrow the item family' and to 'identify candidates here, then pull full detail with get-compendium-entry'. It also notes that SRD packs are excluded, providing clear context. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' but is otherwise helpful.

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