search_items

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether authentication is needed, or what happens if no results match. It only explains parameters, not the tool's general behavior or return conventions. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely performs external queries.

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 consists of one precise sentence followed by a clear, well-formatted parameter list. Every line adds value by explaining a parameter, with no redundant fluff. It is both concise and easy to scan.

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?

For a search tool with 10 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the input semantics reasonably well but lacks broader contextual details such as typical use cases, filtering behavior, pagination, or any caveats about location-based searches. It is adequate for a straightforward search tool but does not fully orient an agent on how to interpret results or handle edge cases.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It adds useful details: examples for max_price_cents (5000 = 50 PLN), a scale for min_rating (0-10), explanation of free_delivery (True = restaurants with free delivery only), and the list of sort options. It also mentions latitude/longitude as an alternative to an address. However, it does not elaborate on the 'apps' parameter beyond saying 'list of apps,' and latitude/longitude are not listed as distinct named parameters, though they are referenced.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Searches for dishes matching the query.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_venues (which searches venues) and get_venue_menu (which retrieves a menu). The example 'pizza margherita' further reinforces the intended use.

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 implies the tool is for searching dishes, which gives clear context for when to use it, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. No exclusions or comparisons to siblings are provided, so the guidance is only implicit.

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