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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavior beyond that: detection is limited to what is externally visible ('repère ce qui est visible depuis l'extérieur') and the plugin inventory is explicitly never exhaustive, which tells the agent not to treat a short list as proof of absence. It does not describe failure behavior on unreachable domains.

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 tight passage: the capability claim comes first, the detection targets are listed compactly after the colon, and the exhaustiveness caveat is placed last where it belongs. Every clause carries information and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly carries the burden of enumerating return contents, which it does thoroughly (version, theme, parent theme, plugins, builder, hosting, CDN, headless). It also flags the key reliability caveat about plugin coverage. Minor gaps remain around response shape, error handling for unreachable sites, and the absence of explicit routing to alternatives.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents that the URL may be a full address or bare domain, with an example. The description's only contribution is the 'site public' qualifier, which hints at a reachability requirement but adds no syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb (detect) and resource (a public site's WordPress footprint) and then enumerates the exact artifacts it surfaces: version, theme and parent theme, page-code plugins, page builder, hosting, CDN, headless mode. That is far more concrete than a tautology, and it is clearly distinct from siblings like verifier_securite_plugin or comparer_plugins. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so it does not fully earn a 5.

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 detection scope; there is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus radar_domaine (broader domain recon) or comparer_plugins (plugin comparison). The one implicit constraint is the word 'public', which rules out non-reachable or authenticated sites, but that is left for the agent to infer. Minimum viable guidance.

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