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

Annotations already establish a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds substantial context: it reads directly from the installation so results are correct even right after an update, and it warns that the slug field can be null and, when null, the entry is unusable for update_wordpress_item/set_wordpress_plugin_state. This materially exceeds what the annotations convey.

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?

Purpose and differentiator are front-loaded, then the slug caveat. The paragraph is dense but each sentence carries distinct, actionable information; only slightly long.

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 carries the return-shape burden and does so precisely (display name plus slug in parentheses, slug may be null). Combined with the upstream accuracy note and downstream tool dependency, an agent has everything needed to call and use 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?

Single parameter ('domain') is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the description need not explain it. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema's own 'z. B. example.de' example, so the baseline 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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('Listet WordPress-Plugins und -Themes mit verfügbarem Update') and distinguishes itself from the sibling get_wordpress_status by noting it is more precise than that tool's counter. An agent can separate it from the update/state tools immediately.

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?

Explicitly contrasts with the alternative get_wordpress_status ('Genauer als der reine Zähler...') and gives the selecting condition: use this when you need to know which specific plugins/themes are affected. It also routes the agent forward by stating which tools consume the output and that they require the slug.

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