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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description is consistent with them ("Read-only"). It adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: each check is one loopback request to the site, and it explains the Royally dispatch path where a read-only marking lets it run immediately — useful cost and execution context for an agent.

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?

Led by the verb and resource, then the check enumeration, then two short clarifying sentences. The listing of checks is long but each item is a distinct probe the agent needs to know about, so 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?

No output schema exists, and the description tells the agent what is checked but not the response shape (how toggle states and per-check results are structured). For a read-only diagnostic with a trivial single-param schema, it is otherwise complete.

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% with a single enum-constrained site_id, so the parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional site_id semantics, which is acceptable at baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (Returns) and a precise resource (harden-site toggle states plus live checks), then enumerates exactly which checks run: XML-RPC, generator tag, /wp/v2/users, ?author=1, readme.html, license.txt. An agent can distinguish this from scan-security or security_triage without opening either schema.

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?

The description conveys the context (anonymous-visitor hardening probes) and notes it runs straight away via Royally, but it never says when to pick this over the sibling security tools like emcp-tools-scan-security or fleet__security_triage. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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