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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful output-level context by saying the result includes a plain-text title, whether the measure is considered critical, and whether it can be reverted. It does not cover auth or rate limits, but those are minor for a simple read-only status tool.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, then immediately handles sibling disambiguation. It uses two sentences with no filler, and every clause adds either scope or differentiation value.

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 must carry return-value expectations, and it does so by mentioning plain-text titles, criticality, and reversibility. Combined with the explicit sibling contrast, it gives an agent enough to call and interpret the tool 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%, and both parameters (domain, site_url) are documented in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific verb („Zeigt“) and resource (WordPress-Härtungsmaßnahmen auf einer Installation) and clarifies the exact scope: which measures are active and which are missing. It also explicitly distinguishes this tool from get_security_status, so an agent can identify it without opening the schema.

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?

It states exactly when to use this tool versus the closest alternative, get_security_status. The contrast is concrete: one reports malware findings and exposed files from the nightly turbocheck report, the other reports the WordPress hardening state itself.

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