search_site

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It notes the endpoint is 'public,' implying no authentication and a typical read-only WordPress search, but it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, response structure, pagination, or rate limits. The naming and context do some work, but gaps remain.

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 a single, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource before mentioning the endpoint, making it immediately scannable and efficient.

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 two-parameter search tool, the description is minimally adequate: it names the resource and endpoint, and the schema defines the required query and optional limit. However, there is no output schema and no explanation of return format or limit behavior, so an agent must infer important details. It is not severely incomplete, but it leaves clear gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It does not mention 'limit' or the query syntax, and the 'query' parameter is only inferred from the verb 'Search.' The schema provides types and constraints, but the description adds little to parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the action ('Search'), the resource ('LearnOneTech posts and pages'), and the mechanism ('WordPress's public search endpoint'). It differentiates from the sibling 'search_articles' by spanning both posts and pages, making the distinction easy to identify.

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 implies a site-wide search across posts and pages, and the sibling list suggests 'search_articles' is more specific. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions or edge cases, leaving the choice inferable rather than explicitly guided.

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