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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the return shape (ids, titles, status), but says nothing about pagination behavior or the fact that results are inherently limited by per_page/page.

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 tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the cross-tool pointer immediately after. Every clause earns its place, no filler.

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 no output schema, the return description (ids, titles, status) is a genuine contribution for a list tool. However, for 6 parameters at 33% schema coverage it leaves pagination and filtering semantics unexplained, so an agent cannot fully predict result sets.

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 description coverage is only 33% across 6 parameters, so the description is expected to compensate and largely does not. It never mentions site, search, status, page, or per_page, and 'posts or pages' only loosely gestures at the type enum; the remaining parameters are undocumented in both places.

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 ('List posts or pages') scoped to 'a connected WordPress site'. It also names the complementary sibling ('fetch full content with wp_get_post'), so an agent can distinguish listing from retrieval without opening either schema.

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 routing sentence tells the agent to use wp_get_post when it needs full content, which is useful but framed as a follow-up rather than a when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives rule. No guidance on when to pick this over wp_list_sites or other list tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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