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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact — that it uses local WordPress auth and needs no REST API keys — but says nothing about pagination behavior, ordering, or what a note record contains.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, with no filler. The second sentence is arguably implementation detail but is short and does carry auth-relevant information.

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 5-parameter read tool with a nested free-form filters object and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin: it does not explain what filters are accepted or what a returned note looks like. Annotations carry the safety profile, so the remaining gap is moderate rather than severe.

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%, so every parameter including site_id's 'call list_sites first' instruction is already documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which is the baseline 3 case. The nested filters object with empty properties is left entirely to the schema.

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: 'Retrieves notes for a WooCommerce order.' An agent can tell it fetches a collection of notes, though the description never distinguishes it from the singular sibling wc_get_order_note, so the boundary is left to inference.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The only contextual sentence concerns authentication ('local WordPress authentication; no WooCommerce REST API keys are required'), which is not usage guidance and does not help an agent choose between this and wc_get_order_note or wc_get_order_meta.

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