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

Goes well beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations: it discloses the status filter that is silently applied, warns that empty results are ambiguous, describes the exact response envelope (results, total, total_pages, page, per_page, query) and what a `snippet` contains. The 'server marks it read-only, so it runs straight away' note is consistent with readOnlyHint=true.

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-loads what it searches and what it excludes before the fallbacks and the return shape, and the dense clauses all carry information. The closing 'Through Royally' sentence is slightly extraneous given the read-only annotation already says this, costing a point.

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 no output schema, the description takes on the burden of documenting the return shape and does so field by field, including pagination metadata. Combined with the status-exclusion caveat and the alternative-tool routing, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret a zero-result response.

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 would be 3 regardless. The description echoes the `subtype` scoping behavior and the `snippet: true` gate, which reinforce how parameters change scope/results, but it adds no syntax or constraints beyond what the schema already documents (ranges for per_page/snippet_length, enum for site_id).

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 ('Searches published posts by keyword') plus the scope knob (`subtype`, default all public post types). It immediately differentiates itself from wp_search (term lookup) and wp_list_posts / wp_list_pages / wp_list_media, which are named as the alternatives for other statuses.

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?

Gives explicit when-not guidance: drafts, pending, private, scheduled and media are never returned, so an empty result is not proof of absence, and it names the exact fallback tools and parameters (`wp_list_posts`/`wp_list_pages` with `search` and `status: "any"`, `wp_list_media` with `search`). It also routes taxonomy-term lookups to `wp_search`, leaving nothing to inference.

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