wordpress_search_posts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the search covers title, content, and excerpt, which is useful. However, it does not mention read-only behavior, pagination characteristics, or any side effects, leaving some ambiguity about the operation's safety and return behavior.

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 concise sentence that immediately conveys the core functionality. No filler or redundant information is present, and the structure is front-loaded with the action and searchable fields.

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 tool is relatively simple with only two parameters and no output schema, so a brief description might suffice. However, the lack of any mention of return format, pagination behavior, or search semantics (e.g., partial matching, case sensitivity) leaves gaps. Given no annotations, a slightly more detailed description would improve completeness, but the current level is adequate for basic understanding.

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 description must compensate. It implicitly explains the 'query' parameter by saying 'by keyword', but it does not address 'perPage' at all. The description adds no meaning to perPage, leaving the parameter completely unexplained beyond its name and type.

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's function: searching posts by keyword, with an explicit scope of title, content, and excerpt. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like wordpress_get_posts which likely list posts without keyword filtering. The verb 'search' and resource 'posts' are specific and unambiguous.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wordpress_get_posts or wordpress_get_post. The description implies usage for keyword-based searching but does not explicitly state when it is preferred or what scenarios it is not suitable for. There are no exclusion criteria or alternative tool references.

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