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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and non-open-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description usefully adds the return shape (titles, slugs, URLs, snippets), but says nothing about ranking, result ordering, or what happens as `limit` approaches its cap of 10.

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 with zero waste: the operation is front-loaded, followed immediately by the returned fields. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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 two-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description supplies the corpus scope and the return fields, and the annotations carry safety. Remaining omissions (ordering/pagination, behavior of `limit`) are minor but real.

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%: `query` is documented ('Search terms') while `limit` has only constraints and a default, no semantics. The description's 'full-text search' does add matching-behavior meaning beyond the schema's terse 'Search terms', but it never addresses the limit/cap parameter, so compensation for the coverage gap is partial.

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 and resource ('Full-text search over Inside the Loop posts') plus a topical scope, which is far more informative than the title 'Search posts'. It does not, however, name or contrast itself against the siblings get_post or list_recent_posts, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the topical scope hints at the corpus searched, and the presence of get_post/list_recent_posts implies this is the keyword-lookup path. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-naming sentence, which is the main gap for this tool family.

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