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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context with no output schema present: the return format differs by Divi version ('divi4' shortcode in post_content vs 'divi5' JSON element tree). It stops short of covering failure cases such as a page with no Divi layout.

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 the core action and then the version-dependent output formats. Every sentence carries distinct information and there is no 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly supplies the return shape (divi4 vs divi5), and annotations cover the read-only safety profile while the schema fully documents both parameters. Minor gaps remain around edge cases (page without Divi layout, multi-site ambiguity when site_id is omitted).

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% with only two parameters, both documented in the schema (post_id and optional site_id), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's 'specific page/post' phrasing loosely reinforces post_id but adds no syntax, constraints, or defaults beyond the schema.

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 the Divi layout data for a specific page/post'), which cleanly separates it from sibling lookalikes like elementor_get_page_data and wp_get_page. It also names the two possible payload shapes (shortcode layout vs JSON element tree), so an agent knows exactly what kind of artifact it retrieves.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no routing against alternatives such as wp_get_page (generic page content) or elementor_get_page_data. The Divi 4 vs Divi 5 format notes describe what comes back, not when to pick this tool, so an agent must infer its applicability from the name alone.

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