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

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it names the returned field (onboard_url), explains the downstream wizard behavior (installs connector plugin, opens wp-admin, completes automatically), and rules out the common alternatives (no Application Password, no follow-up call). This is rich behavioral context beyond the readOnly/destructive/openWorld annotations.

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 core action, then the required next step, then verification, then the edge case — a logical progression with no filler sentences. The all-caps emphasis and layered clauses make it slightly dense, but every sentence carries operational weight.

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 connection tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return value, the user-facing next action, the verification loop, and the transport edge case. Nothing an agent needs to invoke and then correctly handle the result is missing.

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 100%, so the structural baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics: domain normalization ('https:// and www are stripped') and a usage condition for transport. Minor tension: the schema documents 'ssh' as the default transport while the description frames 'ssh' as a Hostinger-only fallback, which could mildly confuse an agent.

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 ('Connect a WordPress site to XeoRank') and immediately disambiguates from the crowding of connect_* and set_wordpress_connection siblings by describing the plugin-based onboarding flow. An agent can tell what this does and how it differs from the other connection tools without opening any 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?

Explicitly prescribes the post-call action ('PRESENT THAT TO THE USER AS A CLICKABLE LINK and stop there'), names the follow-up verification path (list_wordpress_sites or verify_wordpress), and gives a conditional exception (transport='ssh' only as a Hostinger fallback). When-to-use, when-not-to-act, and alternatives are all covered.

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