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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that with 'Cheap and instant' (cost/latency) and 'No WordPress writes' (domain-specific confirmation it does not touch the CMS), plus it enumerates the return content, which matters because there is no output schema.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with the value proposition ('Cheap and instant') front-loaded, followed by what it returns and the safety caveat. No filler or redundancy.

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 an 8-param preview tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is returned, that it is a non-writing dry run, and that it precedes generation. Remaining gaps are the un-described pattern/template parameters, which the schema only partially covers.

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?

With 8 parameters and only 50% schema description coverage, roughly half the inputs (slugPattern, titlePattern, titleSuffix, templatePageId, templatePurpose) are undocumented in both schema and description. The description references 'target', 'pattern' and 'keyword' generally, adding marginal meaning but not compensating for the coverage gap.

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 ('shows the title, slug and keyword each target would get') for a batch of location pages, which is clearly distinct from generation tools. It implies the sibling relationship via 'before generating' but never names the counterpart (e.g., generate_location_page_drafts), so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Gives clear context for use: adjust the pattern first, then generate. It does not explicitly name the alternative tool or state when NOT to use this preview, but the 'before generating' framing establishes the intended workflow position unambiguously.

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