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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description adds substantial context beyond them: the error-on-refusal behavior for views and foreign-site tables, the multisite super-admin nuance, the required capability, the 'write access on' precondition, and the forwarding scope. This is exactly the kind of extra behavioral disclosure annotations cannot carry.

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 purpose and return shape, then constraints in descending order of importance. Dense but nearly every sentence carries information; the trailing AlphaBridge forwarding sentence is context rather than invocation guidance, a minor dilution.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, nothing needed to call it correctly is missing: return shape is named inline, refusal cases are enumerated, and capability prerequisites are stated.

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% and the schema already explains prefix inclusion, example values, and character stripping, so the description adds little about the single parameter. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting; the description only echoes 'as wp_db_tables lists it'.

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 (DESCRIBE) and resource (one database table), enumerates the exact returned columns (Field, Type, Null, Key, Default, Extra), and names wp_db_tables as the listing sibling. An agent can distinguish this from any other wp_db_* tool without opening a schema.

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?

Clearly routes the agent: use wp_db_tables to discover table names, then this tool to inspect one. It also states exclusions (unknown tables, views, other sites' tables are refused) and prerequisites (manage_options, write access on). No explicit statement of when NOT to use it for other inspection tasks, but coverage is strong.

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