Search Posts

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

Annotations already establish that this is read-only, open-world, and idempotent, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds valuable behavior beyond those hints: search is scoped to published posts, results are relevance-ordered, and the response has no pagination. This is solid context without redundancy.

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 with zero filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the return-shape reference and pagination note each earn their place by clarifying expectations for the caller.

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 low-complexity search tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, everything needed is present: scope, ordering, return shape, and pagination behavior. Pointing to list_posts for field definitions is sufficient even without an output schema.

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 100%, so the parameters are already fully documented. The description adds no param-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, but it also doesn't need to because the schema carries the burden. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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'), a clear resource ('a publication's published posts'), and a distinctive behavioral detail (ordered by relevance). It also names the sibling list_posts as the source of the return shape, which helps differentiate it from the other read tools.

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 full-text search purpose implicitly tells the agent when to choose this tool over list_posts or get_post, but it never explicitly says 'use this when you need full-text search' or names an alternative to avoid. The reference to list_posts is helpful but not a direct usage-route.

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