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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses ordering (newest first), a filtering exclusion (Ghost/federated authors excluded), auth posture (no auth required), and a rate limit. It omits return shape/pagination and the limit parameter's default/cap, but for a read-only search this is solid disclosure.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with verb+resource+scope, then exclusions, then endpoint/auth constraints. Every sentence carries distinct information with no waste.

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 read-only search with no output schema, the description covers scope, ordering, exclusions, auth, and rate limiting. The remaining gap is `limit` semantics and pagination behavior, which is minor but leaves the second parameter under-specified.

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 coverage is 50%: `q` is documented ('Keyword, non-empty') while `limit` has no description at all. The description clarifies that the keyword matches title + body (useful added meaning for `q`) but is redundant on the non-empty requirement and says nothing about `limit`'s default of 5 or max of 10, so it only partially compensates.

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+resource with scope: 'Search published public posts by keyword (title + body), newest first.' The word 'public' and the 'no auth required' framing distinguish it implicitly from the sibling search_posts, but it never names that alternative, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 gives context that implies usage (public endpoint, no auth), but offers no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance against siblings like search_posts, search_everything, or search_topics. Usage is left to inference.

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