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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does so well for the safety dimension: 'strictly read-only and cannot edit content, access admin data, use carts, or place orders' explicitly bounds what the tool will and won't touch. It does not mention pagination, result-size limits, or rate constraints, leaving minor gaps.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core capability and scope, then immediately the constraint. No filler or redundancy; every clause earns its place.

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 3-parameter discovery tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, both modes, and the read-only boundary. It does not describe the shape or volume of returned results beyond the no-query case, which is a minor omission given there is no output schema to fall back on.

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%, so the schema already documents query, include, and limit_per_type. The description's note that omitting the query returns recently modified content largely restates the schema's own query description, adding little beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('Search or browse the entire public Family Fishin website') and enumerates the covered content types (articles, WordPress pages, WooCommerce products). It distinguishes the tool as the broad site-wide option, but it never names the narrower siblings (search_articles, get_article, etc.), so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

It clarifies both invocation modes ('Search or browse' vs. 'With no query, returns recently modified public content'), which gives useful context for the query parameter. However, it offers no guidance on when to prefer this over the five sibling search/get tools, and no exclusions beyond the read-only note.

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