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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonable work: it declares the tool 'strictly read-only' and states it cannot access drafts or admin pages or edit content, which is the key safety boundary for a fetch tool. It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and error behavior, so it is not fully transparent.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler, and the core action (fetch a published page) is front-loaded ahead of the return-value and constraint details. Every sentence contributes new information.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is fetched, what is returned ('cleaned plain text and canonical metadata'), and what is off-limits. Only error/edge behavior (e.g., what happens for an unpublished slug) is unaddressed.

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 100%, so id_or_slug is already documented in the schema; the description only adds the qualifier that the page must be published and public, which slightly constrains valid values. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Fetch one published public WordPress page') and scopes it clearly to published, public content. It references discover_site as the discovery sibling, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from get_article or get_product, so an agent must infer the page/article/product split.

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?

The phrase 'discovered by discover_site' implies the tool belongs in a discover-then-fetch flow, which is useful implied guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no named alternative for fetching articles or products, so routing between the three sibling fetchers is left to inference.

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