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

Annotations already cover the safe-read profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false), yet the description adds substantial non-structured semantics: an empty list means 'no WordPress', whereas a failed retrieval must never be interpreted as absence, and an unreachable installation is not deleted. It also states that missing fields are reported as absent rather than fabricated. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context annotations 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?

The core purpose and the site_url gap are front-loaded, but the empty-list vs. failure vs. unreachable distinctions, while valuable, are dense and repeated in emphasis (Wortwahl in Anführungszeichen, Großschreibung NIE), making it longer than necessary for a one-parameter getter.

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?

For a complex discovery tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-value semantics (empty vs. error vs. unreachable, and handling of absent fields) so an agent can interpret results correctly. No output schema exists, so explaining result semantics here is appropriate and complete.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is self-documented with an example, so the baseline is 3; the description adds meaning by clarifying the domain scopes the result to a hosting's installations, reinforcing the parameter's role rather than just repeating it.

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) with stated fields (Adresse, Version, Zustand) and scope (die zu einem Hosting gehören). It also positions itself against siblings by noting that other WordPress tools require a site_url that previously could not be discovered — a concrete, differentiating role.

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?

Clearly signals when this tool is the entry point: whenever another WordPress tool would need a site_url that isn't yet known. It doesn't enumerate explicit exclusions (e.g., when to prefer get_wordpress_status or check_wordpress_integrity), but the prerequisite-discovery framing gives strong context.

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