search_posts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses case-insensitive matching, that only matched posts' full content is returned, and that it is best for targeted lookups. While it could mention ordering or pagination, it still gives meaningful behavioral context well beyond a bare verb.

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?

Every sentence earns its place. The purpose is front-loaded, the usage distinction follows immediately, and the parameter list is compact yet complete. No filler or redundant restatement of schema titles.

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 covers purpose, usage boundaries, edge interpretations of parameters, and result scope. An output schema exists to describe the return structure, and the description itself is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly among many siblings.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description manually explains every parameter: query as word/phrase, account as slug or full URL, days_ago with '0 = no limit', and limit with default/max values. This fully compensates for the empty schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Full-text search across post content (case-insensitive keyword/phrase match).' It clearly identifies what the tool does and remains distinguishable from sibling tools such as list_posts and get_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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'use for targeted lookups rather than open-ended browsing (use list_posts for that).' This names the alternative and states the deciding condition, leaving no ambiguity about when this tool is appropriate.

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