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 only the filterable dimensions and no pagination behavior, default handling, or why openWorldHint is false; with annotations carrying the safety load, this is a modest addition.

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 sentences that are front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. It is efficiently sized for the information it conveys, though it could be slightly denser with pagination detail.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. Still, for a 6-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, the description omits page/per_page/site_url semantics, leaving the agent to guess how pagination and site targeting work.

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 and does add value by naming the type values (post/page/custom) and the status/search filters. However page, per_page, and site_url are never mentioned, so pagination and site-scoping semantics remain undocumented.

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 (List) and resource (posts or pages) on a connected WordPress site, so the core purpose is unambiguous. It does not differentiate itself from adjacent siblings like wordpress_search_content or wordpress_get_post, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.

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 description lists what can be filtered but never states when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wordpress_search_content (which also takes a search term) or wordpress_get_post. No exclusions, prerequisites, or selection criteria are provided.

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