search_items

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic function without mentioning important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what kind of items are returned, how results are formatted/paginated, or any limitations/constraints. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise with just two sentences. The first states the purpose, the second documents the single parameter. There's no wasted text, though the structure with 'Args:' heading is slightly informal but clear.

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?

Given there's an output schema (which handles return values), the description focuses on the search function and parameter. However, for a tool with 1 parameter but 0% schema description coverage and no annotations, the description should provide more context about what 'items' means in this system versus the many sibling tools, and how this search differs from other search options.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does provide the parameter name 'query' and indicates it's a search query, which adds basic semantic meaning beyond the schema's bare type information. However, it doesn't explain query syntax, supported operators, or examples - just the minimal parameter identification.

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 states 'Search for items in Things' which clearly indicates the verb (search) and resource (items in Things). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_todos' or 'search_advanced' - it's unclear what 'items' encompasses versus 'todos' or what makes the advanced search different.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_todos', 'search_advanced', or the various 'get_' tools. The description only states what the tool does, not when it's appropriate versus other search or retrieval options available.

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