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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that (no pagination behavior, no auth/scope caveats, no note that results may be empty for an unknown rest_base), leaving it at the minimum-viable level.

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 tightly written sentences: the core action and its addressing mechanism come first, then the required discovery step. No filler, no redundancy.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, the definition never indicates what a listed custom post looks like or how pagination interacts with results beyond the schema's per_page note. The dependency on wp_list_post_types is a good addition, but the return surface remains undocumented for a tool with no output schema.

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 75%, so most parameters are already documented; the enum-constrained filters (status, order, orderby) are self-evident. The description's rest_base examples and provenance largely duplicate the schema's own rest_base description, adding little new meaning.

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 ('List') and resource ('items of any post type') and explains the addressing mechanism (REST base), which is distinctive versus wp_list_posts. It does not explicitly contrast with the standard-post sibling, so an agent must infer that this is the generic/custom-type variant.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite chain: call wp_list_post_types first to discover the rest_base value. It stops short of naming when to prefer this over wp_list_posts or woo_list_products, so no exclusion guidance, but the dependency is clear.

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