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

Adds real behavioral context beyond annotations: scans run synchronously with GuardPress but in the background with Wordfence, nothing is changed on the site, and the response lists sites with no scanner. The 'changes nothing on the site' phrasing sits in mild tension with readOnlyHint=false, but the description explains enough (a scan job is still being started) to avoid being misleading.

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?

The core action and the resulting behavior are front-loaded, and the follow-up pointer comes last in the right place. The definition stays information-dense, though it packs mechanism, limits, fallback, and rerouting into one sentence plus a fragment, which reads as slightly dense rather than clean.

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 one optional parameter, no output schema, and all safety hints in annotations, this definition covers what is needed to call it: what it does per-site, what changes, what the reply lists, and where to find results. It does not describe the shape or timing of scan results, but it delegates that to fleet__check_vulnerabilities, which is a reasonable design.

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 100%, so the schema already documents site_ids, but the description adds information the schema does not contain: a hard cap of 50 sites and an explicit statement that omitting the field scans every connected site. That is a genuine value-add over the structured field, though it is brief.

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 and resource ('Start a fresh security scan on each chosen site') with scope limits (up to 50) and a concrete mechanism (per-site security plugin: GuardPress or Wordfence). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools, and it even names the follow-up tool (fleet__check_vulnerabilities) an agent should use next, so the agent can route correctly 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 explicit context for when the parameter is needed ('Optional site_ids (default every connected site)'), states when to follow up ('Use fleet__check_vulnerabilities afterwards'), and notes a limitation (sites with no scanner, Kadence Security cannot scan). It does not state when *not* to run a scan (e.g., rate limits, whether a concurrent scan is in progress), so it stops short of a 5.

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