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

The description is consistent with readOnlyHint=true and adds genuinely useful context beyond annotations: results are ranked by best match and each hit includes the most relevant passage as a snippet. It omits result limits, pagination, and what happens on zero matches, so the added context is real but partial.

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 front-loaded sentences, zero filler: the first covers scope and ranking, the second covers the return shape. Nothing redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 single-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the definition covers what is searched, ranking order, and the snippet return shape, which is enough for correct invocation. Only pagination and result-count behavior are left unstated.

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?

With one parameter and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3; the description earns more by clarifying that the query is matched against titles, descriptions, and full body text, which tells the agent far more about accepted query semantics than the schema's 'Keyword or phrase to search for'.

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 ('Search blog posts') plus the searched fields (titles, descriptions, full text) and ranking behavior, which clearly separates it from list_posts and read_post. It never names a sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferable 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no alternative tool is named, even though list_posts and read_post are obvious candidates an agent might confuse it with. Usage is only implied by the word 'Search'.

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