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

Adds real value beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: it discloses that results are compact rows without content bodies, that output is paginated, and that an is_elementor flag marks builder pages. The closing note about the server marking it read-only largely restates the annotations, so not a full 5.

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-loads the purpose and filters, then the return shape, then the alternative. Dense but nearly every clause carries information; the 'Through Royally' sentence is the weakest since it duplicates annotation intent.

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 correctly covers return shape (compact rows, no body) and the pointer to get-post. For an 11-param read tool this is largely complete, though sort behavior and default type handling could be spelled out.

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?

With only 55% schema coverage, the description usefully explains what the filters do (type, status, search, taxonomy, author, parent) and clarifies pagination and the is_elementor flag. It leaves order/orderby and site_id semantics to the schema, which documents them adequately.

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 pair (lists/searches) and resource (posts, pages, or any CPT), and immediately distinguishes itself from get-post for full content. An agent can tell what it retrieves without opening the 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?

Explicitly routes the agent to get-post when the content body is needed, and enumerates the available filter dimensions. It stops short of stating when-not to use it (e.g. vs list-pages or search-posts siblings), but the core when-to-use is clear.

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