search_blog_pages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosure. It states that matching occurs against title and body content and that all matches are returned, which is useful. However, it does not discuss limitations, authentication, pagination, or return structure.

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 sentence that starts with the action verb and contains no unnecessary words. Every part contributes to understanding the tool's function and scope.

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 one-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, search fields, and return behavior. It could mention pagination or result ordering, but the tool is simple enough that the current level is sufficient.

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 only describes 'query' as a search term. The description adds that the query matches against title and body content, providing field-level semantics beyond the schema and increasing clarity for the agent.

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 uses the verb 'Search' with the specific resource 'Ghost CMS pages' and clarifies that matching is against title and body content. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_blog_posts or search_events.

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 the tool is for searching pages, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives such as search_blog_posts. There are no exclusions or alternative references, leaving the usage context implicit.

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