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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/safe, so safety is covered; the description instead contributes non-obvious behavior — that raw=true escapes non-breaking spaces and smart quotes and counts them, and that wordpress_list_posts omits content. It stops short of noting whether the full payload is large/paginated, but the added context is genuinely useful.

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-loaded with the core purpose, then the raw-flag semantics, then the edit-safety warning. Every sentence earns its place, though the parenthetical framework list (Avada/Fusion, WPBakery) is slightly verbose for the point being made.

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 3-param read tool with an output schema (so return shape needn't be described) and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the important usage and hazard context. The only missing piece is any meaning for site_url.

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 carries the burden. It explains the raw flag thoroughly (escaping and counting invisible characters) but says nothing about the id parameter's expected form or what site_url selects when the account has multiple sites, leaving one of three params unaccounted for.

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+scope: reads one post/page in full, itemizing what comes back (raw content, categories, tags, featured image). It explicitly contrasts with wordpress_list_posts, so an agent can distinguish it from the closest sibling without opening either schema.

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 precondition ('Read the page with this BEFORE editing it') and a conditional branch for the raw flag ('which is what to check when a replace fails to match text you copied from here'). It also names the alternative list tool and the condition that selects this one over it.

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