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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds behavioral context beyond them: a plugin prerequisite and the reassurance that nothing is submitted. It stops short of covering pagination or the on-site data source, keeping it at a solid 4.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then layers usage and prerequisites in a single dense paragraph. Every sentence earns its place, though the run-on structure packs several ideas together, slightly reducing scannability.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be spelled out, and the description still covers the workflow, prerequisite, safety profile, and parameter behavior. Nothing an agent needs 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load. It explains form_id's two-mode behavior (default lists all, a value fetches one form's details), but site_url is only implied by 'a connected WordPress site' rather than documented explicitly.

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+resource (lists Contact Form 7 forms) and goes further by describing the two operating modes: all forms, or a single form's fields/required/e-mail settings when form_id is passed. It distinguishes itself from the sibling wordpress_test_contact_form, which it names 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?

Gives an explicit scenario ('diagnose a contact/quote form whose conversions stay at zero') and a concrete next step, naming the alternative tool wordpress_test_contact_form with the condition that selects it. It also states the prerequisite (Contact Form 7 plugin must be installed).

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