Search Globally

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: results are titles/context only, max 20 per call, offset-based pagination, and a rate limit of 250 calls/hour versus 1000 for other tools. It stops just short of describing ordering or ref_type behavior nuances, but the operational envelope is well disclosed.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by return shape, the retriever handoff, pagination, and the rate-limit caveat. Each sentence carries distinct information despite some mild emphasis repetition around 'titles and context only'.

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 steps in to describe the returned fields (title, type, direct link, app/space/org context) and their limitations. Combined with pagination, rate limits, and the sibling handoff, an agent has everything needed to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reiterates the 20-result cap and offset pagination that the schema already states, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the structured fields.

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 (searches) and resource (all accessible Podio content by keyword), and names the return payload. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by asserting it is 'the only way to search text fields' and contrasting with podio_filter_items.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use podio_get_item to retrieve full field values, and notes podio_filter_items cannot do text search. Covers when-to-use and which sibling to pick instead, leaving little to inference.

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