item_search

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It adds useful behavioral context by stating the return shape is a list of matching entries, and that search is by name/partial name. It doesn't disclose pagination, sorting, empty result behavior, or any error conditions, which would be expected for an unannotated search tool.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler. The core action is stated first, the return type is next, and the alternative routing is last. Every sentence earns its place and the description is 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?

This is a search tool with seven parameters and no output schema, so some extra context about result format or limits would help. The description explains basic selection logic and return list shape, but omits details like field meanings, pagination, or matching behavior beyond the fact that partial names are allowed. It is adequate but not 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters including defaults and allowed values. The description adds only the general hint 'by name', which reinforces the query parameter but doesn't clarify filter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 names a specific verb ('Search'), a concrete resource ('D&D 5e magic or mundane items'), and the input method ('by name'). It also distinguishes itself from the general-purpose omnisearch by limiting scope to items, and from item_get by saying it returns a list of matching entries.

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?

It explicitly states when to use: when you know the content type is an item. It also names omnisearch as the alternative when type is uncertain. However, it doesn't mention when to use item_get instead of item_search, which is a sibling tool that likely handles exact single-item lookup.

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