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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds only that results include the menu-to-location assignment mapping, with no note on what appears for unassigned locations or how the fixed list is ordered.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no redundant phrasing; the scope ('all') and the returned pairing are stated efficiently. Nothing unnecessary, though nothing is done to structure or prioritize the information further.

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 simple, side-effect-free read with one fully documented parameter and complete annotations, the definition covers what the tool returns well enough to invoke it correctly. A note on behavior for unassigned locations would close the only real gap.

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 single site_id parameter has 100% schema description coverage, including the explicit instruction to call list_sites first and not to pass a URL or post ID. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Lists all registered theme menu locations') and adds the key distinguishing detail that it also reports which menu is assigned to each location. This separates it from wp_list_menus, which lists menus themselves, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the read tool to call before assigning a menu, but the description never states when to use it over wp_list_menus or that wp_assign_menu_location is the paired mutation tool. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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