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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result surfaces active/inactive state and update availability, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or what happens when site_url is omitted.

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 that names the resource first and appends the useful payload detail. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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 single-parameter, read-only listing tool with an output schema that already documents the return shape, the description is nearly sufficient. The only real gap is how the site_url parameter is expected to be supplied.

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?

There is one parameter and schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema alone gives no guidance. The description only obliquely implies that the call targets one connected site; it never explains that site_url identifies the site, accepts a URL format, or that it is optional with an empty default.

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 ('List installed plugins') and goes further by naming what the listing reveals (active status, available updates). It is clearly distinct from wordpress_install_plugin and wordpress_manage_plugin by intent, but it never explicitly routes the agent away from those siblings.

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?

The phrase 'on a connected WordPress site' implies the general context in which this is used, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion, and no pointer to wordpress_manage_plugin or wordpress_site_info as alternatives. Usage is left to inference.

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