Search the site

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and reach are covered. The description adds the useful 'single call across three content types' nuance, but says nothing about result ordering/ranking, pagination behavior, or what a match contains.

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, purpose front-loaded ahead of usage. The second sentence is short and earns its place as routing guidance; nothing is padded.

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 search with no output schema and paging parameters (per_page 1-50, default 20), the agent is left guessing about result shape and how to page through matches. Acceptable minimum, but incomplete for a tool whose return format is entirely undocumented.

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 0% and the description documents none of the three parameters — no guidance on query syntax, the sub-type selector, or the per_page cap. Worse, it advertises 'media' as searchable while the subtype enum only offers post/page/any, so it adds confusion rather than compensating.

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 (search) and the resources it spans (posts, pages, media), plus the aggregation angle 'in one call' that separates it from the per-type listers like wp_content_list and wp_media_list. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

'Use this to locate content before editing it' gives a clear intent and implicitly points at the edit flow (wp_content_update). However it names no alternatives and gives no when-not — nothing tells the agent why to search here versus wp_content_list or wp_media_list.

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