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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/non-destructive annotations, the description explains what 'ungeprüft' means and what the agent should do about it, and states an operational rule no annotation carries: a job still waiting after 3 hours is considered aborted and must be restarted. That is exactly the kind of domain behavior the structured fields cannot express.

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 what is returned, then input, then usage rule, then two edge-case definitions. Every sentence carries information, though the status list and the 'ungeprüft' explanation occupy similar ground and could be slightly tighter.

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, so the description must explain return content — and it does, listing per-site states plus a summary. It also covers failure/timeout interpretation, which an agent needs to act on the result 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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100% — the schema already documents the 32-character hex format. The description adds the provenance of the value (the batch_id from start_bulk_wordpress_update), which is modest but useful linkage, without adding any new constraints.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('shows the progress of a bulk job per site') and immediately enumerates the status vocabulary, so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It also implicitly separates this read tool from start_bulk_wordpress_update, which it names as the source of the input.

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 and when-not-to-use: 'nur abfragen, wenn der Kunde den Fortschritt wissen will — nicht von sich aus nach dem Start wiederholt nachfragen.' This directly prevents the most likely misuse (polling loop) and pairs the tool with the sibling that produces the batch_id.

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