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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavior disclosure. It only states that it performs a unified search and supports filtering; there is no mention of what the response looks like, pagination mechanics, any side effects (read-only is implied but not stated), rate limits, or the shape of results. For a search tool, this is minimal.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists content types and filtering capability. No fluff or repetition. The length is justified by the breadth of content types, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating the filter list). Overall efficient.

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 (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the default behavior (e.g., all types searched if 'types' omitted), what the return structure is, or how to interpret results across different content types. Agents would need to infer many details. For a general search tool with many siblings, more guidance is warranted.

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 only 25% (only 'q' and 'tags' have descriptions). The description adds context about the 'types' parameter by listing valid categories, which is useful, but it does not explain 'sort', 'match', 'fields', 'page', or 'limit' semantics beyond what the schema's minimal defaults and enums reveal. It partially compensates for the low coverage but leaves key parameters unexplained.

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?

Clear statement of purpose: unified search across the network, listing many content types and explicitly mentioning filtering by types. This distinguishes it from the many specific find_* siblings (find_posts, find_tools, etc.) — the 'unified' keyword signals it covers all types, whereas those are targeted.

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 (unified search covers many types not available in individual finders), but it never explicitly contrasts with alternatives or states when not to use it. No direct mention of the sibling find_* tools or a preference rule (e.g., 'use this for cross-type search, use find_posts for single type'). The context is clear but not explicit.

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