Search the theme repository

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

Annotations already mark it read-only/non-destructive, and the description adds that the actual target is the external WordPress.org directory, not the local site. It also discloses the key return surface (slug, version, rating, install count, last-updated, compatibility, block-theme flag), which matters because no output schema exists. This goes beyond annotation boilerplate without loading unnecessary caveats.

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 sentences contain the verb, resource, return fields, intended use case, and the external-not-local distinction. Nothing is redundant or repeated from the schema. The most decision-relevant facts are front-loaded.

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 simple read-only search with a fully documented schema, the description covers what results contain, where they come from, and when to use the tool. No output schema exists, so the explicit return-field list closes that gap. An agent has enough to select and invoke 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?

All four parameters (search, page, per_page, block_themes_only) already have descriptive entries at 100% schema coverage. The description's mention of block-theme flag maps to block_themes_only but adds no new format or constraint details. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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?

States 'Search the public WordPress.org theme directory' with a specific verb and resource, then enumerates the returned fields. The closing 'queries WordPress.org, not your site' clearly differentiates it from site-local theme tools like list_themes. It is unmistakably distinct from search_plugins and install_theme.

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?

Description gives clear selection context: use when you need theme metadata 'enough to choose one before install_theme'. It also excludes the alternative interpretation by stating it queries WordPress.org rather than the user's site. It doesn't name sibling alternatives explicitly, so not a 5.

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