Search WordPress Content

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds substantial behavioral context: it names the exact endpoint, explains pagination with offset and limit, and fully specifies the return envelope including has_more and next_offset. This goes well beyond the annotations and gives the agent a precise model of the tool's output and behavior.

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?

The description is well-structured: a clear lead sentence, a bulleted arg list, and a JSON return shape. It is longer than strictly necessary because the arg list repeats schema content, but every part has a purpose—especially the return shape, since no output schema exists. The structure is front-loaded with the most important 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?

For a read-only, 5-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It covers the endpoint, parameter constraints, pagination behavior, and the full return envelope with field types. It also differentiates the tool from sibling wp_list_posts. There are no significant gaps that would leave an agent uncertain about how to invoke or interpret the 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?

The input schema already covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, constraints, and defaults. The description's arg list largely restates the schema, but it adds useful framing like 'page size' and 'pagination offset' and clarifies that type='any' searches both posts and pages. This is the baseline 3 because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Cross-content keyword search across posts and pages'. It also names the underlying WP endpoint and explicitly distinguishes itself from wp_list_posts by highlighting its lighter-weight nature and the specific fields returned. This makes the tool's purpose and scope unmistakable.

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 provides a clear comparative guideline: 'Lighter-weight than wp_list_posts(search=...) because it returns just (id, title, url, type, subtype) per match.' This tells the agent when this tool is preferable over an obvious alternative. It stops short of listing exhaustively when not to use it, but the guidance is direct and actionable.

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