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

Adds genuinely useful traits beyond the annotations: server-side with no browser, pre-apply (non-mutating analysis), and a cost signal (“Costs a few Assist credits”). The only gap is that the description does not reconcile with the odd destructiveHint=true in the annotations, though it never claims to modify anything, so there is no real contradiction.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb+resource, then the specific defect classes, then the invocation window. It is long and dense, but nearly every clause carries information the agent needs to know what will be flagged.

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 does the work of explaining what findings look like — the defect names and what each means (row_without_breakpoint, sibling_drift). Combined with the cost and execution-model notes, an agent has what it needs, though it never says whether results are returned as a pass/fail list or detailed issues.

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% and the two parameters (site_id, post_id) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail for them, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource (“structural lint of a WordPress page”) and enumerates exactly what it flags (Pro-widget use, deep nesting, empty bands, section bloat, row_without_breakpoint, sibling_drift). An agent can distinguish this from generic page tools like assist_page_digest or wp_compare_pages without opening a schema.

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 clear timing guidance: “Run it after building a section and before you publish.” That establishes context, but it never names an alternative (e.g. design_recommend or assist_page_digest) or states when NOT to use it, so it stops short of explicit routing.

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