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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the description's job is to add context. It does: it discloses the exact fields returned and the notable limitation that theme files cannot be read, which is behavior an agent cannot infer from the 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?

Front-loaded with verb+resource, then payload contents, then workflow cue, then limitation. Three tight sentences with no filler, though the field enumeration is dense and could be trimmed since an 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?

An output schema exists so return values need no prose, and the description still covers purpose, workflow trigger, and a key limitation. For a single-parameter read tool this is essentially complete; only explicit sibling routing is absent.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage, where the schema already states 'Agent single-page reference from list-single-pages.' The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 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?

Specific verb ('Read') plus resource ('single-page bundle you authored'), and it enumerates the returned payload (php, css, js, hooks, description, logic, contexts, requires, history, hash). It differentiates partly from siblings via the save-single-page relationship and the 'theme files are not readable' scope note, though it never contrasts against the other get-* readers.

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?

'Read before save-single-page; copy `edits` fragments from here' gives an explicit workflow trigger, and 'Theme files are not readable' is a clear exclusion. It lacks a direct naming of alternatives (e.g. get-template / get-archive-page), but the when-to-use context is strong.

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