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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds scope facts the annotations don't carry: only publicly visible content is searched, only titles and descriptions are matched (not body text), and the return is citable references. What is missing is result limits, ranking, or matching semantics.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and scope with no filler. Every clause (public visibility, titles and descriptions, citable references) carries information.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with full safety annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is searched, what is visible, and what comes back. Only result-set behavior (limits, ordering) is left unstated, which is minor here.

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 must compensate. It does so partially by indicating the query is matched against post and page titles and descriptions, which is real semantics absent from the schema, but it says nothing about length limits, exact-phrase vs token matching, or expected query form.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: it searches 'publicly visible post and page titles and descriptions in the connected blog.' That distinguishes it from the name alone and from write siblings, but it never explicitly contrasts with the browse-style siblings (list_published, get_published, fetch), which an agent might otherwise pick.

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?

Usage is implied — keyword lookup across published content — but no sentence says when to use this instead of list_published or get_content, and no prerequisites are stated. The selection signal must be inferred from the verb 'search'.

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