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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the manage_options requirement, no-argument nature, empty-value semantics for timezone and permalinks, and the AlphaBridge forwarding scope.

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 description is dense but well-structured: returned fields first, edge-case semantics next, then permissions, operational traits, and the wp_site_info alternative. Every sentence adds information without repetition.

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 zero-parameter read-only settings tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it lists expected fields, explains ambiguous empty values, states the permission requirement, and routes agents to wp_site_info when they need adjacent data.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is not the limiting factor. The description correctly reinforces that the tool takes no arguments, though there are no parameter semantics to explain.

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?

The description uses a specific verb-resource pair ("Get common site settings") and enumerates the returned fields, including title, URLs, email, timezone, language, posts per page, date format, and permalinks. It explicitly distinguishes itself from wp_site_info for versions, themes, and plugins.

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?

It states the required capability (manage_options), clarifies the tool is read-only and takes no arguments, and names wp_site_info as the alternative for versions/theme/plugin data. The forwarding note also clarifies the connection scope.

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