Search posts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered by structured data. The description goes beyond that by disclosing an entitlement caveat ('May require a paid capability on the workspace') and noting results are ranked, which is genuinely useful operational context; it stops short of describing pagination or empty-result 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?

Three short clauses, each load-bearing: what it does, which sibling to prefer, and the entitlement caveat. No filler and nothing important buried.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description says nothing about the shape of results beyond 'ranked' — no mention of pagination, total counts, or what happens when nothing matches. The paid-capability warning partially offsets this, but the result contract remains underspecified for a search 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?

Schema description coverage is only 25% (only projectId is documented), so the description must compensate — and it adds nothing about q, limit, or status. The enum for status and the numeric bounds for limit are self-evident from the schema, but q's matching behavior and limit's pagination role are unexplained in either place.

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 with scope ('Full-text search across titles and bodies, ranked'), and explicitly separates itself from the sibling it could be confused with ('use list_posts to enumerate'). An agent can choose between search_posts and list_posts without opening either schema.

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 both the positive condition ('Use this to find something') and the alternative with its own condition ('use list_posts to enumerate'). This is explicit when-to-use/when-to-use-something-else guidance, not implied.

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