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

Annotations already mark as read-only and open-world. The description adds the behavior of converting to Markdown and retrieving public/published content, which is transparent. No side effects mentioned, but none are expected given annotations.

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, concise, and front-loaded with the core purpose. No unnecessary words, well-structured.

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 retrieval tool, the description covers the essential aspects: what it retrieves, by what identifier, and the output format (Markdown). It also notes restriction to public/published content, which is useful context. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently explains the return.

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 descriptions for both parameters are complete (slug format and example, contentType enum with default). The description doesn't add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it's adequately covered but not enhanced.

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 tool retrieves a single page or post by WordPress slug and converts it to Markdown. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_content and list_content by focusing on retrieval of a specific item.

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?

It implies when to use (when you have a specific slug and want content) and hints at alternatives via 'one' vs. list/search. However, it could explicitly state to prefer search_content for searching or list_content for listing, but it's mostly clear.

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

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and the open-ended nature of results. The description adds valuable context beyond this: it specifies the scope ('public published') and the exact output fields (titles, URLs, dates, excerpts). This clarifies what results will look like without contradicting the annotations.

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?

A single sentence of five words plus a list of fields is efficient and front-loaded with the verb and resource. There is no redundant phrasing or additional detail that detracts from clarity.

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 list tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description combined with the annotations and full schema coverage provides everything an agent needs: the resource scope, the fields returned, and the safety profile. No critical information is missing for correct invocation.

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%, with each parameter (page, limit, contentType) having a clear description. The tool description adds nothing about parameters themselves; it only mentions the output fields. Per the rubric, with full schema coverage, a baseline score of 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?

The description uses a clear verb ('List') and a specific resource ('public published pages or posts') and enumerates the returned fields (titles, URLs, dates, excerpts). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_content (single item) or search_content (query-based) without ambiguity.

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. It does not mention scenarios where search_content or get_content would be more appropriate, nor any exclusions (e.g., private or draft content). The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe-read profile is established without description help. The description adds the 'public published' scope, which usefully signals that drafts and unpublished content are out of reach, and it does not contradict the annotations. It stops short of describing result shape or edge behavior, keeping this at a solid rather than rich disclosure.

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?

A single 12-word sentence front-loads the verb and scope and contains no filler. The title and description align, and every word earns its place — this is concise without degrading into an under-specified tautology.

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 read-only search tool with a fully documented schema and informative annotations, the description covers the essentials of what is searched and how. It falls short on two fronts: no output schema exists and the description never hints at the result format, and no sibling routing is provided to help an agent choose among the four related tools.

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%: query, limit, and contentType each have descriptions, defaults, and constraints in the schema itself. The description only loosely maps to the parameters (keyword → query, pages and posts → contentType) without adding new semantic detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb (search), a resource (public published pages and posts on Ventless Fireplace Review), and the mechanism (by keyword), so an agent can tell exactly what the tool does. Sibling differentiation is only implicit rather than explicit: the keyword-scoped search is distinguishable from list_content/get_content, but no sibling is named or contrasted.

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 usage context — finding published content on the site by keyword — but offers no explicit when-to-use guidance. It does not name alternatives such as list_content (browsing without a keyword) or site_overview, nor does it state any exclusion conditions.

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

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

The description aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation by stating it explains the read-only scope, which is transparent about its side-effect-free behavior. However, it does not describe other behavioral aspects such as error handling or return format, but the annotation already covers the read-only nature.

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 conveys the two main functions: returning metadata and explaining the read-only scope. It is concise and well-structured without unnecessary details.

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?

The description provides sufficient context for a no-parameter tool by stating its purpose and the fact that it explains the read-only scope. It is complete enough for an agent to understand what the tool does, though it does not specify the exact format of the metadata, which is not critical.

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 tool has no parameters, so the schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add any parameter-specific information because none exist, resulting in the baseline score of 3.

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 that the tool returns public metadata for 'Ventless Fireplace Review' and additionally explains the read-only scope of the server. This is a specific action that distinguishes it from sibling tools that search, list, or get content.

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 does not provide any explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (search_content, list_content, get_content). It does not mention alternatives or conditions for using this tool, leaving the agent to infer its applicability from the purpose alone.

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