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

Adds behavioral detail beyond annotations: the 25-result cap on `search`, and what each mode returns (route counts, per-method arguments, response fields). The 'read-only, so it runs straight away' line mostly restates readOnlyHint, which limits the added value somewhat.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the default no-argument behavior comes first, then each mode in turn. Some sentences duplicate schema descriptions, but nothing is wasted.

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 carries the return-shape burden and does so per mode (namespace + route count + usable tools; arguments per method; response fields with include_fields). Only the site_id parameter is left entirely to the schema.

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 the schema already documents every parameter including examples. The description mirrors those semantics (route forms, search matching behavior, include_fields pairing) but adds little that the schema lacks; 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 ('Lists the WordPress REST routes plugins and core register') and frames its role precisely: discovery for wp_rest_read, wp_rest_write and wp_rest_delete. That framing separates it from the sibling read/write tools without needing their schemas.

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?

Each parameter mode is described with its use case: no arguments for namespace inventory, `namespace` for that namespace's routes, `route` for one route's args, `search` for lookup. Clear context on how to pick a mode, but no explicit 'when not to use this vs. alternative' guidance.

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