Filter Items

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose real behavioral traits: a stricter endpoint-specific rate limit (250/hr vs 1000/hr standard) and that results are paginated with a total count. It omits auth/scope requirements and any error behavior, which is why it stops short of a 5.

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?

Five tight sentences, zero filler, and the core purpose plus the highest-risk constraint (text fields cannot be filtered) are front-loaded before the operational notes. The rate-limit warning is placed last where it belongs.

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 no output schema, the description does cover the return shape ('paginated results with total count'), the filter-key constraint, and the rate limit for a 7-parameter nested-object tool. Auth requirements and behavior on invalid field_ids remain unstated, leaving a small gap.

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 the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents filter value shapes and sort options. The description adds genuine value on top by stating filter keys must be numeric field_ids and telling the agent where to obtain them (podio_get_app), plus which sort keys are legal.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Filters items in a Podio app by field conditions') and immediately bounds the mechanism (field conditions, not full-text), which separates it from podio_search_app and from podio_filter_items_by_view. An agent can pick this tool 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?

Gives an explicit when-not with a redirect: 'Text fields cannot be filtered — use search tools instead', plus a provenance pointer ('numeric field_ids ... from podio_get_app'). It never names podio_filter_items_by_view as the alternative for saved-view filtering, so the sibling routing is only half covered.

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