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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only the 'published posts' scope; it says nothing about pagination, result ordering, auth requirements, or rate limits for what is presumably a public search endpoint.

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 efficient sentence with the scope and mechanism front-loaded and no wasted words. It is appropriately sized, though it could have spent one more sentence on parameters or disambiguation.

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 search tool with zero annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is thin: it omits parameter behavior, result/pagination semantics, and any differentiation from sibling search tools.

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 both parameters are undocumented. The description clarifies that the query searches 'title + body', adding some meaning to `query`, but says nothing about `limit` (default 10, max 50) or the query syntax.

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 states a specific verb (search) and resource (posts), plus meaningful scope (published, across the platform, keyword on title + body). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the very similar sibling search_public_posts, leaving the agent unsure which to 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite the presence of closely related siblings like search_public_posts, search_everything, and search_comments. The agent must infer which search tool applies.

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