search_blog_posts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by specifying which fields are searched and that all matching posts are returned. However, it omits details about matching semantics (e.g., case sensitivity, partial vs. exact matching) and any rate limits or authentication requirements, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and behavior. No redundant or filler content.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential aspects: what is searched and what is returned. It could be more complete by explaining result format or matching behavior, but for a basic search tool it is sufficiently complete for an AI to invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with a basic description of the query parameter. The tool description adds meaningful context by specifying that the query matches against title, excerpt, and body content, which goes beyond the schema's generic 'search term to match against blog post content'.

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', the resource 'Ghost CMS blog posts', and the specific scope 'matching query against title, excerpt, and body content'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_blog_pages by specifying posts rather than pages, and from other content types by explicitly naming 'blog posts'.

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 clearly implies this tool is for searching blog posts, and the sibling tool names indicate alternatives for other content types. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives as exclusions, so it stops short of full usage guidance.

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