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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the values are live/current ('as they are now'), and there is a mandatory first-call prerequisite (get-skill-doc site-settings-contract) that the agent cannot learn from the schema or annotations.

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 the resource and its fields, then the sibling alternative, then the rule. The field enumeration is long but earns its place by defining the payload; only mild redundancy between 'site settings' phrasing and the title.

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 readOnlyHint annotations, a 100%-covered schema, and an output schema that documents returns, the description only needs to add purpose, alternative routing, and the skill-doc prerequisite — all of which it supplies. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 input parameters, so the baseline is 4. To compensate, the description names the shape of the returned payload (the settings list), which orients the agent even though parameter semantics are trivially empty.

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?

Identifies the exact resource (site settings) and enumerates the concrete fields it exposes (siteTitle, frontPage, permalinkStructure, etc.), which pins down what the caller receives. The read verb is only implied by 'as they are now' rather than stated, and it differentiates from its sibling update-site-settings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 routes writes to update-site-settings ('Change them with update-site-settings'), which functions as the when-not condition, and adds a hard prerequisite ('read get-skill-doc before the first call'). Clear context and an alternative, but no explicit statement of the triggering scenario beyond that.

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