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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine mechanism context: deterministic text substitution rather than an LLM rewrite, and 'without saving anything to WordPress', which is valuable beyond the booleans.

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 core action, then mechanism, safety, and usage in a tight sequence. The parenthetical is dense but every clause carries information; 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?

For a 9-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, mechanism, state behavior, the target keys, and sequencing against the batch generator. Remaining params (e.g. slugPattern, titlePattern, locationId) are undocumented but not critical to correct selection.

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 modest (56%) and the nested `target` object's properties carry no descriptions. The description compensates by naming the accepted keys (name, keyword, slug, notes), adding real meaning the schema alone lacks.

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 (clones/returns) and resource (template for ONE target, retargeted copy), and the 'ONE target' scoping directly distinguishes it from preview_location_pages (plural) and generate_location_page_drafts (batch). An agent can route to it without opening the schema.

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 says to 'check the retargeting before generate_location_page_drafts on the whole batch', naming the alternative and the condition that favors this tool. No explicit 'when-not' guidance, but the pre-flight framing is clear enough for correct selection.

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