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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered, and the description adds real behavioral context: it discloses the return shape, that plugin-registered statuses (e.g. WooCommerce wc-processing) appear dynamically, and that invocation is immediate. The closing line about the server marking it read-only largely restates the annotation rather than adding to it.

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 purpose, then the return shape, then the status examples, then the usage hint — a sensible ordering. The final 'Through Royally' sentence is mostly meta-commentary on annotations 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 zero-required-parameter, read-only enumeration tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is returned, which statuses exist, that plugin statuses vary by site, and why to call it. No meaningful gap remains.

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 single site_id parameter carries its own description and enum value, so the schema fully documents the input. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ("Lists all registered WordPress post statuses") and immediately scopes it to built-in plus plugin-added statuses, which is exactly the distinction an agent needs versus wp_get_post_types or wp_list_posts. The concrete enumeration of the six built-in slugs makes the resource unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states the operative use case: "Use this to discover valid values before filtering by status," which tells the agent to call this before a status-filtered list query. It stops short of naming a specific alternative tool or a when-not-to-use condition, so it falls just shy of a 5.

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