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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description still adds substantive context: the manage_options gate on protected meta, the allowlist filter, the built_with/write_via disclosure, and the caveat that post_content may not reflect what the site renders. That is well beyond what the structured fields convey.

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 action and distinguished alternatives before the caveats, and every clause carries information. The field enumeration and permission details are packed into long, run-on sentences, which slightly hurts scannability.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description's field list is doing necessary work, and it also covers permissions, error cases, and the AlphaBridge connection scope. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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 coverage is 100% and documents defaults, so the baseline is 3; the description goes further by explaining why include_protected matters (allow-listed '_' keys such as _elementor_data) and that it requires manage_options. include_meta gets no equivalent treatment in the description, leaving one small gap.

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 ('Get one post, page or other post-type entry by id') and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It explicitly distinguishes itself from wp_get_post_meta and wp_get_builder_layout, which are the nearest siblings.

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?

Names the alternatives and the condition that selects them ('One meta key alone comes from wp_get_post_meta, a page builder's own layout from wp_get_builder_layout'). It also states prerequisites (edit_posts, manage_options for include_protected) and failure modes (unknown id -> not-found, unreadable post -> refused).

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