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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent, and the description goes far beyond them: it explains what each flag means behaviorally (cache_managed_by_host blocks plugin install, plugin_activation_blocked, unwritable wp-config, and that stale_cache_config does NOT block anything). It also warns which optimisations are dangerous on fragile page builders.

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?

Long but front-loaded: purpose first, then the pre-change ordering rule, then the install_recommended semantics, then the cache-exclusion troubleshooting. Each paragraph covers a distinct decision the agent must make, though the cache_exclusions section is verbose enough to be trimmed slightly.

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?

Output schema exists so return shape need not be restated, yet the description still explains the semantics of the key diagnostic fields an agent must interpret (cache_exclusions, cache_exclusion_warning, cache_runtime.public_ttl, crawler_enabled) and what to do when a page still misses. Nothing needed to act 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 coverage is 0% and the single site_url parameter carries no description in either schema or description. The description adds no syntax or meaning for it, though the parameter is trivially named and defaults to the current site. Baseline for a documented-but-unexplained trivial param is a middling 3.

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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource ('See a WordPress site's speed settings') and enumerates exactly what is returned: caching plugin, enabled optimisations, and risky ones. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like wordpress_set_performance (writes) and wordpress_option (edits the underlying lists).

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?

Explicit sequencing instruction ('Run this before changing anything') and explicit routing guidance for the no-cache-plugin case ('read install_recommended before suggesting one'). It also names the write path (wordpress_option on litespeed.conf.*) and tells the agent to read first, then write the full list back.

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