Search your posts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a real behavioral constraint — results are limited to published, self-authored posts and matching covers title plus body — but says nothing about result ordering, relevance, or pagination behavior beyond the schema's limit field.

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 the scope and matching mechanism stated before any elaboration. Zero wasted words.

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?

With no output schema, the description should ideally indicate what a result contains and how it is ordered or ranked, which it omits entirely. Scope and matching are covered, but the return shape and result ordering are left to inference.

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%, so all three parameters (query, limit, publication) are already documented, including the loose hostname matching for publication. The description's 'across title and body' phrase adds match-scope semantics for query, but nothing about limit or publication matching rules beyond the schema.

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), resource (posts), and tight scope (your own, published), plus the match surface (title and body). The word 'own' implicitly separates it from siblings like research_creator_posts and list_reader_posts, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied: keyword search over published posts versus the enumerated list_posts / get_post alternatives. There is no explicit guidance on when search is preferable to listing, and no mention of edge cases such as zero results or searching drafts.

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