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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that this is a discovery/pre-flight probe meant to precede planning, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, but it omits auth requirements or rate-limit behavior.

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, front-loaded with what is reported and followed by the call-timing instruction. No filler or repetition.

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 no-output-schema read tool, the description usefully enumerates the returned capability categories, which partially compensates for the absent output schema. The main residual gap is the undocumented 'site' parameter, though usage and purpose are otherwise complete.

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 0% and the single 'site' parameter has no description in either the schema or the description text. It is unclear whether 'site' expects an ID, URL, or slug, and the description does not compensate for this gap.

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?

The description gives a specific verb (report) and resource (site capabilities), then enumerates exactly what is returned: theme type, SEO plugin, user capabilities, and whether the Agency MCP Bridge plugin is installed. This clearly separates it from pw_* write tools, though it never explicitly contrasts with similar read siblings like wp_check_site or wp_tracking_status.

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?

It states a clear precondition: 'Call this before planning any build work — do not assume,' which tells the agent when to invoke it. No alternative sibling is named as a fallback, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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