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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations: distinguishes an empty list (a real answer) from a failed retrieval (must never be read as 'no WordPress'), clarifies that 'currently not responding' does not mean deleted, and states that host-unsupplied fields are labelled rather than invented.

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 and scope, and every sentence carries usable information (return fields, error semantics, non-deletion caveat). Slightly padded by framing phrasing such as 'Das Werkzeug, das die Lücke schließt', but nothing is wasted.

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 correctly covers return content (address, version, state) and the two ambiguous-result cases an agent could misread. For a one-parameter read tool with annotation coverage, nothing needed is missing.

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 the single `domain` parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds no format or syntax 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Listet die WordPress-Installationen, die zu einem Hosting gehören') plus the returned fields (Adresse, Version, Zustand). It clearly differentiates itself from siblings by positioning itself as the discovery tool that supplies the site_url other WordPress tools require.

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?

Gives a clear use context: other WordPress tools demand a site_url once more than one installation exists, and this tool is how you obtain it. Lacks an explicit 'when not to use' or a named alternative, but the routing condition is stated clearly.

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