search_items

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the return fields but does not mention pagination, sorting, matching behavior, result limits, or any side effects. For a search tool, this is minimal transparency.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and return fields. It contains no unnecessary words or repetition of schema details.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain the result format and pagination behavior. It lists return fields but not their structure (e.g., array vs object) or how limit/offset affect results. The description is too sparse for a search tool with 3 parameters.

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 only 33%, with only 'limit' documented. The description clarifies that 'query' is for the item name but provides no meaning for 'offset' or additional details on limit/offset behavior. Thus, it does not compensate adequately for the low 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 uses a specific verb ('Find') with the resource 'items' and method 'by name,' clearly stating the tool's function. It mentions the return fields (form, energy, sink points), adding specificity, though it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like search_recipes.

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 on when to use this tool compared to alternatives such as search_recipes, recipe_detail, or alternates_for_item. The description only states the action, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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