cja_search_dimension_items

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It explains the search operation and returns, but does not explicitly state it is read-only or describe error handling, rate limits, or access requirements. Minimal but adequate for a 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?

The description is well-structured with a summary, usage paragraph, Args list, Returns, and examples. It is appropriately sized for the parameter count and does not contain fluff, though it could be slightly more concise if schema parameters were documented.

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, no annotations, and 6 parameters, the description covers the core functionality well with examples. It lacks details on edge cases, case sensitivity, or pagination behavior, but is sufficient for typical usage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description thoroughly documents all 6 parameters, including format hints (e.g., YYYY-MM-DD for dates), defaults (limit 100), and optionality (dataview_id uses configured default). The Args section adds significant value.

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 states the tool searches for dimension items matching a search term, specifying the verb 'Search' and resource 'dimension items'. Examples with specific use cases like 'Find all pages containing checkout' make the purpose unambiguous.

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 description provides usage examples and states it's useful for finding specific items, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like cja_get_top_items or mention when not to use it. Guidance on alternatives is missing.

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