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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it performs SSH with a specific key, pins the host key, and leaves persistent state by marking the site verified. It does not describe failure modes or timeouts, so not a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose and mechanism first, then the sequencing prerequisite, then the resulting state change. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter, non-destructive verification tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, when to call it, and the side effect it produces. The main remaining gap is what a failed or partially successful verification looks like, which the absence of an output schema makes slightly more relevant.

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?

Only one parameter (site_id) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents it and the description adds nothing parameter-specific. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the entire parameter burden.

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 (verify) and resource (connected WordPress site), then spells out the concrete mechanism: SSH to the Hostinger host with the Xyle key, pin the host key, detect the install. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like connect_wordpress, set_wordpress_connection, and get_wordpress_site, which do not perform verification.

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?

"Call this after set_wordpress_connection" gives an explicit prerequisite and ordering relative to a named sibling, which is exactly the routing signal an agent needs. There is no explicit when-not or failure-handling guidance, so it stops short of a 5.

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