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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses the privacy redaction set (same fields core's clipboard copy omits, plus secret-shaped value redaction), that directory sizes are not computed, that HTML is stripped, the loopback/WordPress.org network calls behind include_async and their latency, and the view_site_health_checks capability requirement (super admin on multisite). That is exactly the extra context annotations cannot carry.

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-loaded with the purpose, then parameters, then return shape, then caveats — a sensible order with no filler. It is dense as a single paragraph and the closing "Through Royally: its server marks it read-only, so it runs straight away" is a bit of a non-sequitur, but nothing is wasteful.

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 fully documents the return shape (counts, tests with statuses, skipped, info sections, truncation flags) plus the privacy and capability caveats. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: include_async is spelled out as the slow network/loopback/HTTPS/page-cache tests with a several-seconds cost warning, and include_info is described as the Info payload, reinforcing the schema's own text.

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: "runs core's Site Health status tests and returns the Site Health Info data," which distinguishes it from the info-only getters in the sibling set (wp_ability_core_get_site_info, wp_get_site_info). It never names a sibling tool explicitly, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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 implied by the report description and the cost note on include_async ("can take several seconds"), which helps an agent decide whether to enable it. However, it never says when to prefer this over wp_get_site_status, recipe__run_site_health, or fleet__health_summary, nor when not to call it.

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