Search posts

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the API is public and that no WooCommerce keys are needed, which is useful. However, it does not mention other behavioral traits such as rate limits, pagination behavior, or what happens if no results are found. The transparency is adequate but minimal.

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 sentence of 13 words, extremely concise. It front-loads the key information: what the tool does and a critical constraint (no WooCommerce keys). No unnecessary words are present, making it highly efficient.

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?

Given the low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no enums, no nested objects), the description is minimal but partially complete. It covers the core functionality and a key context point (public API, no keys). However, it does not describe the return format or any output behavior, which would be helpful given the lack of output schema. For a simple tool, it is adequate but could be more complete.

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 already has 100% coverage, describing the 'search' and 'per_page' parameters. The description does not add any additional meaning to these parameters beyond what is in the schema. Therefore, the description adds no extra value to parameter understanding, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 verb 'Search' and the resource 'published WordPress blog posts'. It also specifies that this is a public REST API with no WooCommerce keys required, which distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'sales_report' that may require such keys. The purpose is 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?

The description provides some context about when to use this tool (public search without WooCommerce keys) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. It implies that if WooCommerce keys are needed, another tool like 'sales_report' should be used, but this is not directly stated. Usage guidance is present but incomplete.

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