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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The only behavioral claim in the description ('defaults to draft') merely restates the schema's own enum description for status, adding nothing beyond structured data — no mention of required capability, approval flow, or side effects.

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, zero filler, with the core operation front-loaded before the default-status and hierarchy notes. Every clause carries information.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description is thin: it does not tell the agent what a successful call returns (page ID, permalink) or whether site_id must be supplied when multiple sites are connected. Annotations cover the safety profile, so 3 is the minimum-viable level rather than a failure.

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 the baseline is 3. The description highlights parent for hierarchical pages, which the schema already documents, and says nothing about slug, menu_order, featured_media, or site_id formatting.

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 (create a WordPress page) that is immediately distinguishable from read/update siblings like wp_get_page and wp_update_page. However, it never disambiguates from the very similar wp_create_post and wp_create_custom_post siblings, so an agent must fall back on the names 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?

Adds two useful cues: the operation defaults to draft status and parent should be used for child pages. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to wp_create_post/wp_create_custom_post, and no prerequisites (e.g., which site_id to target) are stated.

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