search_items

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only describes search capabilities and filter options, but omits any mention of read-only nature (if applicable), performance characteristics, or side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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?

Two sentences, no redundant words, and the core purpose is stated in the first few words. Every sentence adds meaningful guidance.

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 4 optional parameters and moderate complexity, the description covers usage well but does not mention what the return data looks like (no output schema). This leaves ambiguity about the result format, which a minimal description should address.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already described in the schema. The description adds value by explaining the interplay between 'component' and 'componentsOnly' filters, which is not clear from the schema alone.

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 clearly states the tool searches TFT items by name, description, or component, and distinguishes two special use cases (componentsOnly and component filter). This effectively differentiates it from sibling tools like get_item_recipe or get_champion.

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 guidance on when to use componentsOnly vs. component filter, and implies query is for general text search. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or suggest alternatives, but the usage context is well implied.

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