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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the description's job is lighter. It adds real value beyond them by disclosing the result cap ('up to 10 matches') and ordering ('newest first'), which the annotations cannot convey.

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 with the search subject, the tag constraint, the result cap and ordering, and the sibling escape hatch. Nothing repeated or wasted; the most decision-relevant information comes first.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden and does supply return shape (count cap, sort order). It is essentially complete for a 3-param read-only search, though it could note that empty results are possible or that an empty query lists newest posts.

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 already 100%, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds marginal meaning by clarifying that only one tag may be supplied and by giving concrete tag examples ('agents', 'mcp'), which helps the agent pick plausible values.

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?

States a specific verb (search), resource (Fedor's blog posts), and match scope (words in title and summary, optionally one tag). It also contrasts itself with get_post, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to get_post 'for the full text,' which tells the agent when to search versus when to fetch. It gives no explicit exclusion or note for the other siblings (case studies, services), so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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