search_items

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavior: filter combination semantics, result ordering (complete items first), and that each result reports completeness and missing animations. It omits pagination/limit behavior and any statement about side effects or permissions, leaving gaps for a mutation-free but unannotated 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?

Front-loaded with a one-line purpose followed by a per-parameter breakdown; each line carries actionable content and examples. Slightly repetitive in places but well structured and free of padding.

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 a 7-parameter, zero-coverage, unannotated tool, the description covers nearly all filter semantics, ordering, and result shape, and an output schema exists so return values need no expansion. The only missing piece is limit/pagination semantics.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for 6 of 7 parameters: query, category, body_type, animation, type_name, complete_only all get meaning plus examples, and the animation/body_type interaction rule is spelled out. Only 'limit' is undocumented anywhere, which is a minor gap.

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+resource ('Procura itens' / search items) and immediately enumerates the filter dimensions, so an agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It does not name or contrast itself with siblings like get_item or list_categories, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Explicitly says all filters are optional and combine, then gives concrete usage context (e.g., the animation filter 'avoids surprises like the tunic without idle'). No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative-tool routing (get_item, list_categories) is given, so it stays below 5.

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