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

Annotations already mark it readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description reinforces with "Changes nothing" rather than contradicting. It adds context the annotations cannot carry: the administrator application password requirement, minimum Bridge versions, and the fact that results include a total count.

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 what it returns, then search behavior, then alternatives, then prerequisites. Dense but every clause carries information; only slight compression cost is the parenthetical version notes interrupting the routing guidance.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description correctly fills that gap by noting the total count and the _crb_* key shape. With only two params, a required site, and prerequisites disclosed, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 schema documents only 'search' (50% coverage); the description clarifies that it matches part of a name OR value and gives worked examples ("promotion", "bar"), which meaningfully extends the schema. The required 'site' parameter is left to the schema, so this stops short of full coverage.

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+resource: reads the theme's Carbon Fields site-wide options (_crb_* keys) and returns a total count. It also names concrete examples (promo top bar, footer text), so the agent can distinguish this from wp_carbon_fields_get and wp_theme_option_set without opening the 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?

Explicitly says to pass search to locate an option among hundreds, routes single-value edits to wp_theme_option_set, and routes script-type options to wp_snippets_get. It also names the prerequisites (Bridge 1.7.0+, search 1.7.1+, administrator application password), leaving nothing to inference.

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