Search in App

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses the return shape (title, type, direct link), the titles-only limitation, the hard 20-result cap, the pagination mechanism, and a 250 calls/hour rate limit. Missing only auth/permission expectations and whether ref_type changes the returned fields.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the constraints, with no filler. The 20-result cap and offset note duplicate the schema, which is the only mild waste.

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 usefully describes what comes back and warns that only titles are returned, plus caps and rate limits. It says results are 'items and tasks' while ref_type also permits file and status, leaving a small inconsistency about what content types can surface.

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%, so limit, offset, query, app_id and ref_type are already documented in the schema. The description restates the 20-result cap and offset pagination but adds no syntax, format, or defaulting nuance beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Searches within a specific Podio app by keyword') and scopes it to an app, which implicitly separates it from a global search. It never names the sibling podio_search_global, so an agent must infer the app-vs-global split rather than being told.

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 clear conditional guidance: results are titles only, so use podio_get_item for full field values, and use offset for pagination. It stops short of naming exclusions or contrasting with podio_filter_items / podio_search_global, so the when-not-to-use case is left implicit.

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