Search items by name

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: fuzzy matching semantics, acceptance of common shorthand (mwd, scram, web), and the default hiding of Blueprints/SKINs — none of which appear in the schema.

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 compact sentences, each carrying distinct information: scope, multi-query/shorthand support, hidden item classes, and the sibling handoff. No filler and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 could briefly note the shape of results (per-query match lists bounded by limit). Still, combined with full schema coverage and explicit sibling handoff, an agent has enough 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 every parameter (group, category, meta_group, limit, with_prices, queries) is already documented. The description only reinforces that multiple queries and shorthand are accepted; it adds no filter semantics beyond the schema, so 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: 'Fuzzy search over every published EVE item', with concrete examples (ships, modules, ammo). It immediately distinguishes itself from item_info by scope, so an agent knows this finds matches while item_info details them.

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 to item_info for 'full details on a match' and notes Blueprints/SKINs are hidden unless asked. Usage is clear, though it doesn't spell out when NOT to use it (e.g., exact-ID lookup) or which sibling handles market/appraisal needs.

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