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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: that the response exposes the SSH public key, a security-relevant payload. It says nothing about auth requirements, staleness, or error behavior for a non-connected site, so it does not reach 4.

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 sentence with zero filler, and the notable payload (SSH public key) is called out inline rather than buried. Nothing to trim.

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 carries the burden of describing the return, and 'details' is vague — only the SSH key is specified. An agent learns it returns site details and a key but not what other fields to expect, so it is minimally adequate rather than complete.

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% for the single required parameter site_id, so the schema already carries the parameter semantics. The description adds nothing about ID format or where to obtain it, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

Specific verb (get) plus resource (details for one connected WordPress site), and the word 'one' scopes it as a single-site fetch, distinguishing it from the sibling list_wordpress_sites. It does not name an alternative tool explicitly, so it falls short of 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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternatives among the many sibling tools (list_wordpress_sites, verify_wordpress, set_wordpress_connection, delete_wordpress_site). The only implied constraint is that the site must already be 'connected', which is thin.

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