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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states the case-insensitive substring matching across specific fields and the cap of 10 results, which is useful. It does not mention pagination, ordering, or behavior when no matches are found, but for a simple read-only search, these are minor gaps.

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 description is two concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core matching behavior and result limit, making it easy to parse and act upon.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values). The description covers matching behavior and result limit, and implies a read-only search. It could be slightly richer by noting differences from sibling list_posts or search_site, but overall it is sufficient for this simple tool.

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?

The input schema only defines 'query' as a minLength 1 string with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates by explaining that the query is a case-insensitive substring matched across title, description, and tags, adding meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 clearly states a specific action: case-insensitive substring search across title, description, and tags. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_posts (which likely lists all posts) and search_site (which likely searches the whole site).

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need to search blog posts by a substring. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like list_posts or search_site, nor does it state when not to use it. This is clear context without explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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