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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It mentions that only published content is searched, which is useful scope, but omits search behavior, result ordering, pagination, authentication requirements, and return format.

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 definition is a single well-formed sentence with no wasted words and is front-loaded with the core action and scope.

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 simple two-parameter search tool with fully described schema fields, the description adequately states the searchable scope. However, it lacks usage guidance versus siblings and gives no behavioral context, leaving gaps that matter more because no annotations or output schema are present.

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 both parameters fully. The description lists the same content types available in the enum but does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 provides a clear verb ('Search') and lists the specific record types it can return, so the tool's purpose is immediately identifiable. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling get_* tools, which appears to be the main missing piece.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the six sibling get_* tools. The description implies it is for site-wide search, but it does not state conditions, exclusions, or alternatives.

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