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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds substantive context beyond them: the required `edit_theme_options` permission, the credential redaction rule with `hidden_keys`, and the fact that results are forwarded by AlphaBridge Connect to a single site.

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-loads the purpose, then the mode switch, then the return shape and edge cases in a tight run of sentences. Every clause (default scope, credential omission, permission, forwarding note) carries actionable information with no filler.

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 supplies the return shape (`{id, id_base, number, name, sidebar, settings}`), the id format example, the hidden_keys behavior, and the permission prerequisite — everything an agent needs to call and interpret results correctly.

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 single optional `sidebar` param is fully documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning the schema does not: that omitting the param also returns inactive widgets, and that an empty `sidebar` value in results means the widget belongs to no area.

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 ("List the site's widgets with their settings") and immediately scopes the two modes: all areas including inactive by default, or one area when `sidebar` is given. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling `wp_list_sidebars` by noting that tool lists the areas themselves.

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 describes the default behavior versus the filtered behavior, and names the alternative tool (`wp_list_sidebars`) for obtaining area ids. An agent knows both when to use it and where to get the `sidebar` value it accepts.

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