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

The description's behavioural claim ('its server marks it read-only, so it runs straight away') merely restates the existing readOnlyHint annotation, warranting no credit. The parenthetical mapping to the underlying ability id 'mcp-adapter/get-ability-info' is a small piece of genuinely additive context, but error behaviour for a bad ability_name and response shape are unaddressed.

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, front-loaded with the substantive capability statement. The trailing 'Through Royally: its server marks it read-only, so it runs straight away' is packaging noise that duplicates annotation data and could be dropped without loss.

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 small read-only lookup tool with no output schema, the description does say what information comes back, which is the main gap it needs to fill. Missing only the edge case of an invalid or unavailable ability name.

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% and the ability_name parameter is documented in the schema, so the schema baseline applies. The description adds no syntax, naming-convention, or format guidance for ability_name, nor does it clarify the site_id enum scope beyond what the schema already states.

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?

The first sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Get detailed information about a specific WordPress ability') and enumerates the payload (input/output schema, description, usage examples), which is more than a restatement of the name. It does not, however, contrast itself with the very close sibling mcp-adapter-discover-abilities, so an agent must 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?

Usage is only implied: 'a specific ability' hints that you must already know an ability name, suggesting it follows a discovery step. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over discover_abilities, nor what happens if the ability name is unknown.

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