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

The description repeats the readOnly annotation ('its server marks it read-only') and adds the useful consequence that it 'runs straight away' without approval. It also discloses the shape of the payload (schemas, description, examples), which annotations can't convey. The 'Through Royally:' phrasing is garbled and adds no actionable context.

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 front-loaded sentences: the core purpose and return contents come first. The second sentence is somewhat redundant with the annotations, but it is short and justifies itself by explaining the no-confirmation behavior.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields (input/output schema, description, usage examples). Combined with read-only annotations and a fully documented two-parameter schema, an agent has what it needs to call this correctly.

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 100%, with both ability_name and the enum-constrained site_id documented in the schema. The description adds no format hint for ability_name (e.g. namespace/name convention), so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 — retrieving detailed information about one WordPress ability — and enumerates what that detail includes (input/output schema, description, usage examples). The word 'specific' implicitly contrasts with the sibling discover-abilities tool, but the contrast is never made explicit.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the step between discovering an ability and executing it, but the description never says when to prefer it over discover-abilities or execute-ability. No preconditions, no when-not guidance.

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