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

Annotations already establish the safe read-only profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), yet the description adds substantial context beyond that: the three finding classes and what each means, including noting extra files as 'die klassische Stelle für eine Hintertür'. It also tempers interpretation, which is genuinely useful for an agent reporting results.

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, then the finding taxonomy, then the scope boundary, then the interpretation caveat. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; nothing is padding.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by describing the return categories and that affected files are named per category. Combined with the scope exclusions and the interpretation caveat, an agent has enough to call it and interpret results correctly.

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%, so both domain and site_url are already documented in the schema, including the multi-installation caveat. The description adds no parameter-level detail 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?

Specific verb+resource: it compares a WordPress installation against official checksums and enumerates the three finding categories it reports. It explicitly bounds the scope ('nur der WordPress-Kern, nicht Plugins, Themes oder Uploads'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like get_outdated_plugins or get_wordpress_status.

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 clear: it explains when the core-only check applies and warns that a finding is not automatically an intrusion ('Auch ein von Hand verändertes WordPress fällt auf'). It does not, however, explicitly name an alternative sibling (e.g. scan_wordpress_vulnerabilities) or state when NOT to run it, which keeps it just below a 5.

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