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

Goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explaining the practical consequence (runs straight away without approval) and by warning that content is returned as raw Gutenberg/HTML markup rather than rendered output. That markup note is real behavioral context an agent can't get from the annotations or schema.

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?

Front-loads the verb+resource, then the return shape, then the exclusion, then the execution note — no sentence is wasted and nothing repeats the schema. The field list is dense but earns its place because no output schema exists.

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 no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating the return payload and flagging raw-markup content. It is silent on failure behavior (e.g., nonexistent or trashed page_id), which is the one gap for a lookup-by-ID tool.

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%, so both page_id and site_id (including the enum site) are already documented in the schema. The description's "by ID" phrasing and the parent/menu_order field notes add little parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 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 ("Gets a single WordPress page by ID") and then enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It also explicitly excludes the CPT case and names the sibling to use instead, which cleanly separates it from wp_get_cpt_item and wp_list_pages.

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?

Provides an explicit when-not rule: "For CPT items use `wp_get_cpt_item` instead," plus the operational note that the server marks it read-only so it executes without approval. It does not address when to prefer this over wp_get_post / wp_get_post_full for post-shaped content, so the routing guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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