Search website content

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 The description adds the 'public published' scope, which usefully signals that drafts and unpublished content are out of reach, and it does not contradict the annotations.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.