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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral detail beyond them: the data is fetched via Xyle's SSH transport, plus the shape of what is returned. It stops short of auth requirements, rate limits, or failure behavior.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and resource lead and the returned fields are tacked on efficiently.

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 one-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, naming the returned fields (name, status, version) covers most of what an agent needs to know about the response. Only the empty-state or error behavior is unaddressed, which is a minor gap.

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) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, which matches the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource: 'List installed WordPress themes', with the returned fields (name, status, version) called out. It is easily separable from mutation siblings like wp_set_theme or wp_list_pages, though it never explicitly names a sibling it is not.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb: an agent can infer this is the read-only inventory call for themes. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no pointer to wp_set_theme as the alternative for changing a theme.

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