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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: returned fields, the hardening-measure linkage consumed by apply_wordpress_security_measure, last-check semantics, and the critical caveat that an empty result may be meaningless. This is exactly the kind of behavioral detail agents need.

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?

It is a dense single paragraph, but it is front-loaded with the tool's purpose and then layers the caveat at the end. Every sentence carries information, though the warning about empty results could be visually separated for quicker scanning.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description enumerates the key return values (CVE, risk rating, active exploitation, fixed version, hardening measure, last-check date) and explains how to interpret a missing timestamp. Combined with fully documented parameters and annotations covering safety, it is complete for a read-only scan tool.

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 schema already explains domain as required and site_url as conditional for multiple installations. The description adds no parameter syntax, format, or examples 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?

Starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Listet bekannte Sicherheitslücken in WordPress-Kern, Plugins und Themes einer Installation'. It names the returned artifacts (CVE, risk, exploitation status, fixed version) and connects to the sibling apply_wordpress_security_measure, so an agent can identify the tool 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?

Provides important interpretation guidance: the last-check timestamp and the warning that an empty result is not an all-clear when 'kein Zeitpunkt hinterlegt' appears. However, it never explicitly states when to use this scan versus alternatives such as get_security_status or check_wordpress_integrity, so routing relies on inference.

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