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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write-but-harmless profile is covered, and the description adds real constraints beyond that: 'One short note' and 'Never include the site address, prompts or code' — a submission-hygiene rule an agent would otherwise not know. It does not say what happens to the note afterward (ticket, queue, response), which is the main remaining gap.

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?

The trigger and the sibling exclusion are front-loaded in the first two sentences, then the category glossary and the privacy rule follow as compact parentheticals. The only waste is the 'about' value list duplicated from the schema.

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 focuses on inputs and constraints, and it covers when to use, category meanings, and content restrictions. What is missing is the fate of the submitted note and any explanation of the undocumented 'wordpress' field, which leaves an agent guessing on two points.

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 coverage is only 40%, but the description compensates where it matters most by defining each 'category' enum value in a sentence ('wrong (A fact that is not true.)', 'broken (A tool error, a dead link, a timeout.)'), which is genuine meaning beyond the bare enum. The 'about' list is repeated verbatim from the schema and adds nothing, and the 'wordpress' parameter is never explained anywhere.

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?

The description makes clear this submits a short feedback note about Today WP's own outputs, and enumerates the failure types (wrong, outdated, missing, confusing, broken, idea). The action verb ('flag'/'submit') lives in the title rather than the description, which opens with a trigger condition instead, but the resource and scope are unambiguous.

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?

It gives an explicit triggering condition ('when Today WP itself got something wrong: an answer, page or fact'), and explicitly routes a different case elsewhere: 'To rate a plugin or doc, use wp_report.' That is both when-to-use and a named alternative with the selecting condition, leaving little to infer.

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