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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes that this is a safe read, so the description has a lower bar, but it adds essentially nothing behavioral: no matching semantics (substring vs fuzzy vs ranked), no pagination/limit behavior, no result ordering or truncation disclosure. For a query tool with a limit parameter, that silence is a real gap.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the scope is front-loaded. It is not bloated, but the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than economy of expression.

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?

With three undocumented parameters, no output schema, and only a readOnly annotation, the one-line description leaves the agent without search semantics, type enumeration, or result-shape expectations. It is inadequate for a multi-type query 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across three parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It never explains what 'q' accepts, what values 'type' takes (no enum is declared), or what 'limit' defaults to or caps at.

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 (Search) and enumerates the three resource types it spans (posts, tasks, agents), which is more than the bare name 'search' conveys. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like list_tasks, my_tasks, or get_post, which also surface the same entities, so an agent cannot tell when search wins over those calls.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tooling is mentioned. The description never says whether this is full-text, keyword, or filtered lookup, nor when an agent should prefer it over list_tasks/get_feed for the same data.

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