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

Annotations already declare this a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), and the description is consistent with that. It adds a genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond annotations — matching is case-insensitive substring, not fuzzy/token search — but says nothing about result ordering, pagination, or false-positive behavior, which matter most for a search tool.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what is searched before the filter details. Slight redundancy in repeating 'case-insensitive' already present in the schema's query description.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the annotations cover safety. What is missing is search-behavior completeness: ordering/relevance of results, whether the scope spans teams, and limit semantics for a tool with four parameters.

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%, so the description must carry weight; it partially does by naming the status and platform filters. However, it never explains limit (default 20, max 100) or the minimum query length, and adds no meaning beyond the enum names already visible in the 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?

States a specific verb and resource (text-search across posts) and names the scope of records searched (drafts, scheduled, published). It implicitly separates itself from list_drafts and list_scheduled_posts by being content-based rather than enumeration-based, though it never names those siblings.

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 mention of optional status/platform filters implies when the tool is useful, but there is no explicit 'use this instead of list_drafts/get_post when...' routing. An agent must infer from the sibling list which tool fits a given intent.

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