search_posts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: the match fields (captions plus summaries/key points/how-to), the return shape (compact cards with a has_knowledge flag), and the limit bound (1-50). It omits read-only/safety framing and any behavior for empty or no-match results, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the action before the filters and return shape; nothing is padded. Very little could be cut without losing parameter meaning, though the parenthetical listing of knowledge types is slightly verbose.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description properly covers the return format (compact cards, has_knowledge flag) and the searchable surface. It is adequate for an agent to call correctly, with only edge-case behavior (no results, multiple tags) unaddressed.

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 and largely does: query is defined by what it matches against, folder accepts 'collection id or folder name', tag is singular ('one tag'), and limit is bounded at 1-50. Only minor gaps remain, such as tag matching semantics or default limit behavior.

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) and resource (the library) and clarifies what is matched (captions and deep-read knowledge), which distinguishes it from get_post and the list_* siblings. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 word 'Optionally restrict to one folder' and/or one tag' implies the usage pattern (broad search, then narrow), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not, and no named alternative such as get_post for known IDs.

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