Search items

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the matching semantics (containment on ItemCode or ItemName) beyond the annotations, which is useful, but says nothing about case sensitivity, result ordering, or what happens when the limit truncates a larger result set.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, and the most important information (what is searched, and on which fields) is front-loaded. Nothing in it could be removed without losing meaning.

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?

With four optional parameters, full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is close to sufficient, but it leaves real ambiguity: whether matching is case-sensitive or tokenized, whether results are ordered, and how the default limit of 20 interacts with a broad query. For a search tool these are the details an agent most needs.

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 limit, query, fields and inStockOnly are all documented in the schema itself. The description restates the query semantics that the schema already gives and adds nothing about the other three parameters; baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific verb ("Search") and resource ("items") and states the matching rule: substring match on ItemCode or ItemName. That is enough to distinguish it from get_item (key lookup) by implication, but it never names the sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent must infer that this tool is for partial-text lookup while get_item is for exact retrieval. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when not to use it, and no reference to search_business_partners as the analogous tool for a different resource.

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