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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context such as case-insensitive substring matching and that drafts/scheduled/published are all included, but it does not go further into pagination, result ordering, or rate limits.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The primary behavior and scope are front-loaded, and the optional filters are mentioned without unnecessary detail.

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?

Given the read-only annotation, an output schema, and a moderate 4-parameter surface, the description covers the core search semantics, scope, and filters. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly, though it could have added a hint about when to prefer list_drafts/list_scheduled_posts for non-search listing needs.

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 only 25%, and the description does not compensate enough. It mentions optional status/platform filters but does not explain limit behavior, how filters combine, or the meaning of the status enum values. The query parameter's schema already describes the substring match, so the description adds minimal new parameter-level information.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Text-search across the user's posts') and defines the exact matching behavior ('case-insensitive substring match on post content'). It also scopes the resource to drafts, scheduled, and published posts, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_drafts or list_scheduled_posts.

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 establishes clear context: use this tool when you need text-based search across post content, with optional status/platform filtering. It does not explicitly say 'use list_drafts instead when not searching,' but the intended use case is evident.

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