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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key traits: the operation is free of charge and returns a one-line paste/import note per format. It does not explicitly state read-only/no-side-effect behavior or auth requirements, but "List" plus "Free" makes the cost and safety profile clear.

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, both earning their place: the first names what is returned and the format of each entry, the second states cost and the decision it resolves. The parenthetical enumeration is front-loaded rather than buried.

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 zero-parameter, non-mutating lookup with no output schema, the description covers everything needed: what comes back, in what shape (one-line note per format), that it costs nothing, and when to reach for it. Nothing required to invoke it correctly 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate. The description still adds value by explaining the output feeds the `target` argument of other tools, connecting this no-arg call to a parameter elsewhere.

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 (List) and resource (WordPress builder formats the service can emit), and enumerates the actual values returned: Elementor, Gutenberg, Oxygen 6, Oxygen Classic, Etch, plain HTML. An agent can immediately tell this apart from the Figma-oriented siblings convert_figma and inspect_figma.

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?

"Free; call it when unsure which `target` to use" gives an explicit trigger condition tied to a concrete downstream decision. It stops short of naming when-not-to-call (e.g., skip it if you already know the target), but the context is clear enough to act on.

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