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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the sentence 'its server marks it read-only, so it runs straight away' merely restates that rather than adding new behavioral context. Nothing is said about what the returned schema covers or how complete it is.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the capability and followed by the ability identifier and a safety note. The Royally wrapper sentence is somewhat redundant with the annotations but not wasteful enough to penalize further.

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 schema-discovery tool with no output schema, the description should at least sketch the shape of the result (e.g., a list of field types with their editable properties). It hints at the content but gives no sense of structure or how to consume it, leaving a meaningful gap.

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?

Only one parameter (site_id), fully documented in the schema with an enum and site URL, so schema coverage is 100% and the description does not need to add anything. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Describe') and a concrete resource: WPForms field types, field properties and form settings that can be created or edited. It is clearly distinguishable from get_form/list_forms, but it never names those siblings or states the relationship.

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 should be called before composing a form create/edit payload, but the description never says so explicitly, nor does it state when not to call it or what to use instead.

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