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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and the description's 'server marks it read-only, so it runs straight away' merely restates that. It adds a small operational note (runs immediately, no approval) but nothing about return shape or remote-call behavior that would earn more, and it does not contradict the annotations.

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 core purpose is front-loaded, but the third sentence ('Through Royally: its server marks it read-only, so it runs straight away') is meta-commentary that largely duplicates annotations and reads awkwardly, weakening an otherwise tight two-sentence definition.

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 2-parameter, no-required-arg read tool with no output schema, the description plus full schema coverage is nearly sufficient. The only gap is the lack of any differentiation from sibling info tools, but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% — both the fields enum and the site_id enum are fully documented. The description's mention of 'all fields or a filtered subset' just restates the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Returns site information configured in WordPress'), which is clear. However, it does not distinguish this from close siblings like core-get-environment-info or core-get-user-info, so an agent has no signal for why this one versus those.

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 explains the fields parameter behavior (all fields by default, or a filtered subset) but gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over the many site/environment/user info siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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