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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description goes further by describing the result structure (three separate categories, affected files named per category) and by warning that legitimate manual edits also trigger findings. That interpretative framing is real added value beyond the annotations, though return format/pagination details are absent.

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 comparison and the three finding types, with the scope limit and the caveat following. Four sentences, each carrying distinct information, though the first sentence is long and packs mechanism plus enumeration together.

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 explaining returns and does so by naming the three finding types and stating that files are listed per type. Combined with the explicit scope boundary and the false-positive caveat, an agent has enough to call and interpret the tool correctly, though exact output shape remains unspecified.

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% – both 'domain' and 'site_url' are documented in the schema, including when site_url is needed. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

The description states a concrete verb and resource (compares a WordPress installation against official checksums) and enumerates the exact three finding categories it produces. The scope constraint 'only the WordPress core, not plugins, themes or uploads' implicitly separates it from neighbors like scan_wordpress_vulnerabilities, get_outdated_plugins and get_wordpress_hardening.

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 context is implied – checking core integrity is a post-compromise or hygiene action – but the description never states when to reach for this tool versus scan_wordpress_vulnerabilities or get_wordpress_hardening, nor any prerequisites. The interpretation caveat ('a finding is not automatically a break-in') is helpful context rather than routing guidance.

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