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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scoping constraint that sections can be trimmed to avoid huge payloads, which is genuinely useful context, but says nothing about response shape or size beyond that.

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 capability and followed by the one actionable knob. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies enough for correct invocation. The only minor gap is that it never distinguishes this snapshot tool from wp_get_post/wp_get_post_meta for an agent choosing among 30 siblings.

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 100%, so all four parameters including the content_format enum are already documented in the schema. The description's 'Use include or exclude to limit the sections returned' only restates the pair's purpose, adding no syntax or edge-case detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get everything about one post by ID') and enumerates the section scope: fields, custom fields, terms, featured image, author. That aggregate framing distinguishes it from the narrower siblings wp_get_post_meta and wp_get_post_terms, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied (call it when you need a complete post payload) and the second sentence gives operational advice on include/exclude, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, and no routing against wp_get_post which returns overlapping data.

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