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

Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the status filter (drafts, pending, private, scheduled excluded), that media is excluded, the false-negative implication of empty results, and the exact response envelope. This is real behavioral context, not repetition.

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?

Front-loaded with the core behavior and the exclusions/alternatives come before the return shape. It is dense and long, but each clause (default scope, exclusions, fallbacks, response shape, read-only note) carries distinct information.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by spelling out the returned object's fields including the conditional `snippet`. With 8 parameters fully documented in schema plus this narrative, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds value by tying `type: "term"` to the result-type semantics and by explaining that `snippet` exists to avoid a follow-up wp_get_post, which is intent the schema does not express.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Searches published content by keyword') and immediately scopes the default ('posts of every public type') versus the term mode. An agent can tell this apart from wp_list_posts, wp_list_media and wp_search_posts without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly states what the tool will never return and redirects to named alternatives (wp_list_posts / wp_list_pages with `search` and `status: "any"`, or wp_list_media with `search`). The warning that an empty result does not mean the item is missing is an unusually good routing cue.

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