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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile, so the description only needs to add context. It adds the REST-base addressing requirement but says nothing about return shape, missing/404 behavior, or whether custom fields are included.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the essentials (single item, any custom type, ID + REST base) come first. It is arguably too terse for a lookup that depends on knowing a valid REST base.

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 simple read-only get with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description is minimally adequate. With no output schema, it could still tell the agent what the returned item contains or where to obtain a valid rest_base, which is the main completeness gap.

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 id, rest_base and site_id are already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description restates id and rest_base but adds no format, validation, or REST-base-discovery detail beyond the structured fields.

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 (Get) plus the resource (a single item of any custom post type) and names the distinguishing key inputs (ID and REST base). The word 'custom' implicitly separates it from wp_get_post for standard posts, so an agent can differentiate, though the contrast is never stated outright.

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 only implied by the phrase 'any custom post type' - the agent can infer this is for non-core post types while wp_get_post handles standard ones, but no when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative is named. It also omits that rest_base must come from a registered type (e.g. via wp_list_post_types).

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