List items

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is disclosed. The description adds that it supports paging and free-text filtering, which is parameter behavior but not a new side-effect disclosure. It does not add extra behavioral context like authentication requirements or rate limits, but with annotations covering the read-only nature, a 3 is fair.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence: 'Lists inventory/product items with paging and free-text filtering.' Every word contributes, and there is no padding or redundancy. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and capabilities, making it exemplary in conciseness.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters, annotations covering safety, and no output schema. The description explains the listing purpose and parameter behaviors, but it does not mention what the response contains (e.g., fields, structure, pagination metadata). Without an output schema, the description should at least hint at the return type or typical response shape. This missing information makes it incomplete for an agent preparing to parse the output, so a score of 3 is given.

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 100%, meaning all three parameters (page, query, pageSize) already have descriptive documentation. The description mentions 'paging and free-text filtering,' which maps to the parameters but does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema already offers. Per the rubric, the baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high and the description adds no new parameter insight.

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 states a specific verb ('Lists'), a specific resource ('inventory/product items'), and key capabilities ('paging and free-text filtering'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools for other entities (e.g., customers, suppliers) and from the singular bokio_get_item, which fetches a single item. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately recognizable.

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 implies usage context: it lists items, and the name 'list_items' contrasts with 'get_item'. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus bokio_get_item, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternative conditions. The guidance is implied rather than explicit, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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