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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context beyond them: it enumerates what the response contains (plain-text title per measure, whether the measure counts as critical, whether it can be reverted) and identifies the data provenance. Minor gap: no mention of pagination or ordering, though none is implied.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The core action and the scope are front-loaded, and the disambiguation against the sibling follows immediately where it is most useful.

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 partially compensates by naming the returned fields (title, criticality, revertibility) and the set/missing distinction. It is sufficient to call the tool correctly; an explicit note on whether results are cached or how large the list can get is the only missing detail.

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% for both parameters, so domain and site_url are already documented in the schema (including the conditional case for site_url). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, 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?

States a specific verb (

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 names the confusion risk with sibling get_security_status and delineates the boundary: that tool returns malware findings and publicly reachable files from the nightly turbocheck report, whereas this one returns WordPress's own hardening posture. That is an explicit when-not/alternative routing statement, not inference.

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