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

Goes well past the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations by disclosing that it runs with context=edit and returns content.raw plus content.rendered, that valid app-password credentials are required and a success doubles as a credential check, and what specific error payloads mean. That is exactly the kind of failure-mode and auth context annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then parameter semantics, then failure modes — a sensible ordering with almost no filler. It is dense to the point of being a run-on in the error-handling tail (auth_error, wp_timeout, wp_unreachable), but each clause carries actionable information.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still adds the crucial context=edit return shape (content.raw + content.rendered) and the empty-content fallback that the schema cannot express. For a three-parameter, open-world read tool this leaves no decision an agent must guess at.

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 carries the full burden and does: post_id is either a numeric ID or a composite string like 'twentytwentyfive//header' with the invalid_id failure described, post_type enumerates all valid values with 'posts' as default and names the /wp/v2/types source for custom types, and workspace is marked optional when only one workspace exists.

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 and resource ("WordPress-Beitrag/Seite/Vorlage mit vollem Inhalt abrufen") and immediately narrows scope to a single full-content fetch, which separates it from the bulk sibling wp_list_posts without opening either schema. The "vollem Inhalt" qualifier also flags why one would pick this over a listing tool.

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?

Explicitly routes to the alternative wp_builder_get_content when Elementor/Bricks pages return empty content, and tells the agent to retry on wp_timeout/wp_unreachable and to check wp_site_health on auth_error. Missing only an explicit contrast with wp_list_posts/wp_create_post for the list/create cases, which is left implicit.

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