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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the data provenance (daily turbocheck report), the presence of a timestamp in the response, and the resulting staleness limitation – exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs and cannot get from structured fields.

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, and the core scope is front-loaded before the data-freshness caveat. Slightly dense parenthetical listing, but every clause earns its place.

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 read-only, single-parameter status tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, where the data originates, and its freshness limits. Nothing critical is missing, though a pointer to the ideal follow-up tool for real-time checks would have made it 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?

There is a single parameter whose schema description is 100% covered ('Die Domain, z. B. example.com'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no format, subdomain, or ID-vs-domain guidance beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3 for full schema coverage.

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 (abrufen) and resource (WordPress-Status einer Domain) and enumerates the payload (Version, Updates, Cache, Sicherheits-Flags), which lets an agent distinguish it from generic siblings like get_website_report or get_security_status. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the closest sibling, get_wordpress_sites, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The description supplies a meaningful usage caveat – the data comes from a once-daily turbocheck report, so very recent changes may be missing – which tells the agent when this source is and isn't trustworthy. However, it names no alternative tool for fresher or deeper checks (e.g. check_wordpress_integrity, scan_wordpress_vulnerabilities), leaving routing to inference.

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