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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new context: edit_posts permission requirement, that only readable entries are returned, that no match yields an empty list, that content is omitted from results, and that AlphaBridge Connect forwards to the single connected site. That is substantive disclosure beyond the structured fields.

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?

It is a single dense paragraph with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The return-shape and forwarding clauses are packed tightly, but every sentence carries useful information for an agent.

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 10-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers return fields, pagination envelope, omitted content, permission and visibility scoping, and the empty-result case. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 all ten parameters are already documented in the schema, including defaults, clamping and the built_with matching rules. The description only summarizes 'filters, sorting and pagination' without adding per-parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb (List) and resource (posts, pages, any post type) plus the capabilities offered (filters, sorting, pagination). It is clearly separable from wp_get_post (single item with content), wp_search (keyword search), and wp_list_revisions (revisions).

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 explicitly routes to wp_get_post for content and contrasts wp_search as a single keyword search across all searchable types without paging, which tells the agent which to pick. It also states the edit_posts requirement and the read-visibility scoping, but stops short of an explicit 'use this when X, not when Y' exclusion clause.

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