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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false): it discloses server-side raw-JSON handling, lossless verbatim transfer, that the source is untouched, that the result is a DRAFT by default, that images are optionally re-hosted, and that Pro widgets copy but need Pro to render. None of that is derivable from the structured fields.

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 and the migration-mode distinction; subsequent sentences each add a distinct fact (fidelity, image rehosting, Pro caveat, draft default, sibling tool). Dense but zero filler.

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 an 8-param cross-site mutation with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: scope, safety of the source, default status, image handling, fidelity limits (Pro widgets), and the alternate tool. Nothing material 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 baseline is 3, but the description adds outcome-level meaning the schema lacks: rehost_images makes the copy 'self-contained' via media-library rewrite, status defaults to draft, and the copy is verbatim. It does not elaborate source/dest_site_id beyond what the schema already says, so it stops short of a 5.

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 precise verb+resource ('Copy an Elementor page EXACTLY from ONE site to ANOTHER, server-side') and immediately distinguishes itself from both wp_clone_page (same-site) and the wp_get_page rebuild path. An agent can route correctly 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?

Explicit when-to-use ('replicate this page onto site B') with the named alternative rejected ('instead of reading with wp_get_page and rebuilding') and the sibling for the other case ('For a copy WITHIN one site use wp_clone_page instead'). Both branches of the decision are covered.

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