search_saved_posts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose what fields are searched (title, excerpt, publication, author, content), the exact semantics of read_state including the threshold definition (0.95), and that it operates on cached saved posts. This goes beyond a generic 'search' and gives the agent insight into how results are classified. It does not mention pagination or rate limits, but for a search tool this is acceptable.

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 compact and information-dense. The main action is stated in the first sentence, and subsequent sentences add only necessary filtering details. No filler or redundancy exists; every sentence provides value. The structure is logical: what it does, then what it searches, then how to filter.

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 that an output schema exists (covering return values), the description does not need to repeat that. It covers the core behavior, searchable fields, and all non-obvious filter semantics (especially read_state). It might benefit from clarifying the date format or limit behavior, but these are relatively minor and inferable from schema names. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in most scenarios.

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 clarifies the meaning of query (full-text on multiple fields), audience (with example values and a reference to list_audiences), read_state (with explicit enumerated values and the 'finished' threshold), and publication (filter by name). It also mentions date filtering (published_at, saved_at) but does not explain that these are range parameters or their format. It entirely omits the 'limit' parameter. This partial coverage earns a 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 opens with a precise verb-resource pair: 'Perform full-text FTS5 search across cached saved posts.' This distinguishes it from sibling search_saved_notes (search notes) and from list_saved_posts (listing vs. content search). The use of 'FTS5' and 'cached' adds specificity that leaves no ambiguity about what the tool operates on.

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 explains the filtering capabilities (publication, audience, dates, read_state), which implicitly tells the agent when this tool is suitable (when a full-text search or filtering is needed). However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer list_saved_posts over this tool (e.g., 'for a simple list without text search'), and it does not mention any exclusions or alternatives. The usage context is clear but not contrasted with siblings.

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