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

Goes well beyond readOnlyHint/openWorldHint: discloses that returned entries lack content, per_page caps at 100, and the return envelope {data,_meta}. Most valuable is the auth caveat — an invalid app password yields an anonymous response containing only published posts, so _meta.total does not prove access, and a non-public status filter returns auth_error; timeout/unreachable errors and retry advice are also given.

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 core list behavior and post_type semantics before edge cases, and every sentence carries operational value. The auth caveat is somewhat verbose and could be tightened, but nothing is redundant.

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?

Despite an output schema existing, the description still supplies the two facts an agent could not infer: entries have no content, and an anonymous fallback response can masquerade as success. Combined with error strings and retry guidance, nothing needed to call or interpret this tool is missing.

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 carry the load and does: post_type default 'posts' plus accepted values and failure behavior, search as full-text, status examples ('publish'/'draft'/...), per_page max 100, and workspace optional when only one workspace exists. Only 'page' is left implicit via the pagination remark.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource (list WordPress posts or pages) and immediately expands scope to the accepted post_type values, including custom post types resolved via /wp/v2/types. It also distinguishes itself from wp_get_post by noting entries omit content and pointing to that sibling for full content.

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 states what is in scope and what is not (users, plugins, settings, media → invalid_post_type), and routes the agent to wp_get_post for full content or to wp_get_post/wp_site_health when verifying authentication. Alternatives and conditions are named rather than implied.

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