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

Annotations only state read-only/idempotent/non-destructive; the description adds substantive behavior an agent cannot get elsewhere: results return inline with nothing persisted, sections over max_items are truncated and flagged in a 'truncated' list, and downstream diff/apply refuse those sections. It also flags a real data-exposure trait — term descriptions and custom menu item URLs are free text and can carry internal host addresses into the document.

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 scope statement and the exclusions are front-loaded, and the paragraph stays on topic throughout. It is dense and long with capitalized emphasis, and the free-text caveat is buried mid-paragraph rather than surfaced near the top, which costs it a point.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does: inline JSON, per-section structure, a 'truncated' list, and the explicit note that the transport forwards to the single site the connection reaches. An agent has everything needed to call it and to interpret the response.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description earns more by explaining the consequence of max_items (section truncation and the 'truncated' list) and by framing sections as the scope selector for the whole document. It adds no detail on post_types/taxonomies beyond the schema's own defaults.

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 ('Export the STRUCTURE ... as a portable JSON blueprint') and then enumerates exactly what is in scope. It explicitly excludes post content, widget settings, credentials and user data, which separates it cleanly from wp_export_content and the read-side getters like wp_get_site_settings.

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?

Clear context is given: this is a structural snapshot whose output feeds diff/apply, and truncated sections are rejected downstream unless allow_partial is set, which tells the agent to raise max_items rather than patch a partial blueprint. It stops short of explicitly naming wp_blueprint_diff / wp_blueprint_apply / wp_export_content as the alternatives, leaving that routing to inference.

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