search_items

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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=true, the description adds extra behavioral context: the AND semantics when both query and tags are given, and the exact return fields (immediate location, assetId, alias custom field if configured). This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it, though it doesn't cover pagination or limit behavior.

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 is two sentences: the first states purpose and filtering logic, the second states return fields and points to an alternative. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or repetition of schema fields.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values don't need explaining in the description. The description covers the core search behavior, return field highlights, and the main alternative. It doesn't explain the limit parameter's effect, but for a simple search tool with a default value, the description is otherwise complete.

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 must carry the burden for parameter meaning. It explains query and tags semantics, including the AND logic, but it does not mention the 'limit' parameter at all. This partial coverage of 2 out of 3 parameters is helpful but not fully compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Search inventory items by name/keyword and/or by tag names', which names a specific verb ('search'), a specific resource ('inventory items'), and the search criteria. It also distinguishes itself from get_item by noting 'Use get_item for full detail on one result', making the tool's scope clear.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool: when searching by name/keyword or tags. It explicitly points to get_item as an alternative for full detail, and clarifies that it returns items, not locations. However, it doesn't mention when not to use it or other alternatives like barcode_lookup, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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