indexing-find-item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the date format requirement and the API used, but fails to describe critical behaviors such as whether this is a read-only operation, what the output looks like (e.g., result format, pagination), error handling, or any performance considerations like rate limits. For a search tool with complex parameters, this is a significant gap.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a specific formatting note. It avoids unnecessary verbosity. However, the second sentence about date format is somewhat isolated and could be integrated more smoothly, slightly affecting structure.

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 the tool's complexity (4 parameters, nested criteria array, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It lacks details on output format, error conditions, behavioral traits, and differentiation from siblings. For a search tool with rich input schema, the description fails to provide sufficient context for effective agent use.

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 75%, with three parameters well-documented (index, first, skip) and one (criteria) having extensive but redundant field enum listings. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it mentions date format for ISO 8601, which is useful but not explicitly tied to any parameter (likely for date values in criteria). It does not clarify the structure or usage of the complex criteria array beyond what the schema provides.

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's purpose: 'Finds items using the Sitecore Content Search API.' It specifies the verb ('finds') and resource ('items'), and mentions the API used. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'item-service-search-items' or 'provider-get-item-by-query', which appear to serve similar search functions, leaving some ambiguity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions date format requirements but does not specify use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling search tools. This lack of contextual guidance leaves the agent to infer usage from the tool name and schema alone.

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