wp_media_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no note on pagination behavior, result set size, permissions required, or whether the search matches title, caption, or metadata. Only the word 'Search' implies a read-only, non-mutating operation.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, so nothing is wasted. However, at this length it reads as under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness, since no actionable detail survives.

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 two-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition still omits essential operating context: what is searched, how results are paged, and what a result looks like. It is not wrong, but it is too thin to call the tool confidently.

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 0%, so the two parameters (page, per_page) are undocumented everywhere. The description adds no meaning about pagination defaults or valid ranges, leaving the agent to guess conventional semantics.

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?

States a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('WordPress media items'), which is enough to separate it from wp_posts_search, wp_users_search and the other *_search siblings by resource. It does not, however, distinguish the scope of the search (e.g., filters, fields matched) or contrast it with the single-item wp_get_media.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as wp_get_media for retrieving a single item. The agent must infer that this is the list-style counterpart to the get/add/delete media tools purely from the name.

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