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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing what the response contains (title, content, status, dates, permalink) and how content_format alters the content, which matters since there is no output schema. It omits failure behavior for an invalid or non-existent ID.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and returned fields, with the option described second. 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 two-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, the description supplies the main missing piece: the returned fields, since no output schema exists. It could go slightly further on error/empty-ID behavior and on whether pages and other post types are all addressable.

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 50%: content_format is fully documented in the schema (enum plus behavior), so the description's mention of it is redundant. The undocumented 'ID' parameter gets only the phrase 'post or page by ID', which does not clarify whether it accepts any post-type ID or only posts/pages. Baseline 3 fits.

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 ('Get one post or page by ID') and enumerates the returned fields, which is clear and actionable. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling wp_get_posts or wp_get_post_snapshot, so an agent must infer the singular-vs-list split from the name alone.

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?

'by ID' implies the retrieval-by-identifier case, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this over wp_get_posts (listing) or wp_get_post_snapshot (versioned state). Usage is implied rather than guided.

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