search_items

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the search modes, optional filters, and the limit range (1-100). It also implies a read-only operation by calling it a 'search.' It does not mention auth, rate limits, or explicit side-effect disclaimers, but for a search tool the behavior is sufficiently transparent.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence summary followed by a clean Args list. Every sentence adds value, no filler, and the format is easy to parse for an AI agent.

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?

Since an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers search modes, filtering, and result limit. It does not mention edge cases or sorting, but for a straightforward search tool with sibling context, this is adequately complete.

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 0%, so the description is essential. It provides meaningful explanations for each parameter: query (search text), qmode (with enum meanings), item_type (with example), tag (optional filter), and limit (max results 1-100). This adds substantial value beyond the schema's bare titles and defaults.

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?

Purpose is explicitly stated: 'Search the library by title/creator/year or full text.' This clearly identifies the tool as a search function over library metadata and full text, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_item (retrieval) and list_collections (listing).

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 explains the qmode parameter and its two modes (titleCreatorYear vs everything), which indicates when to use each search type. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternative tools or state when to prefer this over siblings like get_item or execute_saved_search. The usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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