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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral detail — that unreadable translations are silently omitted from results — but says nothing about error behavior, missing-language posts, or Polylang-not-installed cases.

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, no redundancy. The core operation comes first and the partial-result caveat follows, so the structure is well front-loaded.

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 two-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety but no output schema, the description covers the what but not the shape of the return (language identifier format, translation ID mapping). The undocumented id parameter leaves an agent uncertain about exactly what to pass.

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 coverage is only 50%: site_id has a description (call list_sites first), but the required id parameter has no explanation anywhere in the schema. The description does not compensate by clarifying that id is the WordPress post ID, nor how it relates to the returned language data.

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: reads a post's language plus its readable translation IDs, via Polylang. This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling wp_set_post_language (write counterpart) and from wp_read_post, though the differentiation is implied by the verb rather than stated 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 by the read/set pairing with siblings; there is no explicit 'use this when...' or exclusion guidance. Nothing warns that this only applies to Polylang-managed sites or what to do if a post has no language assigned.

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