dd2_items

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the key behavioral trait: matching is by substring on the display name, not exact id. It leaves out case sensitivity, whether multiple matches are returned, and what an empty result means.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and outcome, with a parenthetical example that earns its place. Nothing redundant.

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 is simple, has one parameter, and ships an output schema, so return values need no explanation here. Adding match-case behavior and multi-match expectations would close the remaining gap.

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 0% and the single 'name' property has no description, so the description must compensate — and it does, explaining that the value is a display-name substring and giving a concrete example ('ferrystone'). It does not clarify whether the id itself is also matchable.

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 ('Find') and resource ('item ids') plus the matching rule ('display-name substring'), which is far more informative than the bare name dd2_items. It implicitly separates itself from write-path siblings like dd2_give_item, but never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus dd2_recent_items, dd2_give_item, or dd2_types, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only hint of usage is the implied lookup-for-an-id workflow, which the agent must infer.

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