search_items

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

With no annotations, the description does disclose two useful behaviors: matching is case-insensitive and the scope spans requirements and user stories. It does not disclose result limits, pagination, ordering, or whether matching is substring or token-based, which are significant gaps for a search tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, with the optional filter stated second. Nothing is 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?

For a 2-parameter read search with no output schema, the description covers the essentials but omits what results look like, how many are returned, and matching semantics. An agent could call it, but with uncertainty about expectations.

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 50% and the schema's projectId description is misleading ('link this item to'), while the tool description correctly reinterprets it as a project filter — a genuine value add. The query parameter's case-insensitive behavior is also clarified, but minimum length and matching semantics are left to the schema or unstated.

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 (search) and resource (requirements and user stories) plus the matching mode (case-insensitive text). It is clearly distinguishable from list_requirements and list_stories because it is text-driven rather than enumeration, though it does not name those siblings.

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?

The phrase 'optionally limit to one project' implies when to supply projectId, and the search framing implies use over listing when a text query exists. However, it never explicitly contrasts with list_requirements/list_stories or states when not to use it.

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