search_content

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions what the tool returns but doesn't cover important aspects like pagination behavior (implied by 'per_page' but not explained), error conditions, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description is insufficient for a tool with mutation siblings like 'update_post'.

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 perfectly concise - two sentences that efficiently convey the action, target, and return format. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. It's front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 search tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the basic purpose and return format. However, given the lack of annotations and the presence of many mutation siblings, it should provide more context about safety, limitations, and how results are structured. The description doesn't explain what 'excerpts' contain or how pagination works despite the 'per_page' parameter.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions 'by keyword' which relates to the 'query' parameter, but doesn't provide additional context about search syntax, ranking, or how different post types affect results. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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?

The description clearly states the verb ('Search'), resource ('WordPress posts and pages'), and scope ('by keyword'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'get_pages' or 'get_post_content' by specifying it's a search operation rather than a direct retrieval.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'find_and_replace' or 'get_pages'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where this search is preferred over other content retrieval methods available in the sibling list.

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