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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that requests run in-process under the key's user, the route's own permission check decides access, and responses include status, namespace, data, optional pagination, and dedicated_tool. It also explains error reporting, response-size refusal, and the Royally read-only behavior, which materially adds to the readOnlyHint annotation.

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?

The description is dense, front-loads the core behavior, and every sentence carries useful information about routing, alternatives, return shape, errors, or limits. It is somewhat long, but the length is justified by the tool's generic REST-proxy nature and the need to explain invocation constraints.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description fully explains the return object, optional pagination, dedicated_tool routing signal, error behavior, and the 100 KB cap. Combined with rich annotations and full schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to invoke this tool correctly.

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 the schema already defines all four parameters. The description still adds useful invocation context by showing a filled-in route example and explaining that route must exclude query strings and the /wp-json prefix, while query and fields are clearly tied to their schema meanings.

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 description states a specific verb and resource: send a GET request to any WordPress REST route registered by core or a plugin. It also names concrete plugin examples and distinguishes the tool from wp_rest_routes, which is explicitly for discovering routes and their arguments.

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?

It directly tells the agent when to use wp_rest_routes instead and instructs it to prefer a dedicated tool when the response contains a dedicated_tool field. It also explains how to narrow responses with per_page or fields if they exceed 100 KB, covering the main invocation alternatives and constraints.

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