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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the exact shape of each returned record (slug, title, menuTitle, position, autoload, revision, active field count) and a required pre-call step (read the options-contract skill doc).

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 definition and implications, then the sibling routing, then the contract rule. It is dense and slightly long, but every sentence carries distinct information (record shape, routing, required doc), so little is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned record fields. It also covers the required contract doc and points to the sibling tools needed for follow-up actions, making it complete for an agent to call and act on it.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. There are no arguments to disambiguate, and the description's field enumeration concerns return values rather than inputs.

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 the specific resource (options pages / site-wide settings in wp-admin) and elaborates what it means with concrete examples (phone, address, social links, footer text). It clearly distinguishes the tool from get-options-page, save-options-page, and get-field-values by naming them for other tasks.

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 the agent: 'Look here before creating one: a setting that fits an existing page belongs there,' and names the correct alternatives for reading/changing fields, tabs, and values. When-to-use and which sibling to pick instead 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.