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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: what each entry contains (name, address, kind, mode, content kinds, content_save fields) and the cross-tool routing. It stops short of noting pagination or auth prereqs, which is a minor gap given annotations carry the rest.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the defining scope before the routing and exclusion details. The middle sentence listing returned fields is dense but earns its place since no output schema exists.

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 must describe the return shape, and it does (name, address, kind, mode, WordPress content kinds and content_save fields). Combined with the explicit sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to call it 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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline is 4. It usefully describes the shape of each returned record even though that goes beyond strict parameter semantics.

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 resource and scope: sites the user connected without a server, split into WordPress-via-REST and WhizzyCommerce-via-connector. It explicitly excludes server-hosted sites and names the sibling that covers them, so an agent can distinguish it from list_sites without opening anything.

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?

Explicit routing in both directions: use content_ tools on a WordPress site, whizzy_tools and whizzy_call on a WhizzyCommerce shop, and use list_sites/wp/db_query for server-hosted sites. The when-not condition is stated, not inferred.

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