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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact – a default page size of 10 – but says nothing about what after/before do (pagination cursor vs date string) or how results are ordered.

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, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the available filters, then the default size. Every sentence carries information the agent needs and there is zero 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?

For a read-only list tool with no output schema, the description supplies the returned fields and the default page size, which is most of what an agent needs to call it. The remaining gap is the semantics of after/before for paging, which neither the schema nor description explains.

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?

With only 33% schema description coverage, four parameters (after, limit, search, before) are undocumented in the schema, and the description only partially compensates: it maps search/uploader/date range to the filters and clarifies limit's default of 10. The formats for after and before remain unspecified 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+resource ('List items in the Media Library') and the fields returned (ID, title, URL), which cleanly separates it from mutation siblings like wp_update_media and wp_upload_media. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling it is not, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 description implies usage through its filter list (search text, uploader, date range), so an agent can infer this is the tool for browsing media by those criteria. However, it never says when to use this versus wp_get_posts or wp_count_media, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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