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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false; the trailing 'read-only, runs straight away' largely restates them. The description does add that an example invocation is returned 'when available', which is genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations, but it says nothing about failure behavior for a bad tool_name.

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-loaded with the core action and output in the first sentence, then the workflow pairing. The parenthetical site tag and the boilerplate 'Through Royally: read-only, runs straight away' are low-value padding, keeping it from a 5.

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 burden of describing the return value and does so ('full inputSchema ... and, when available, an example invocation'). For a simple two-parameter meta-tool that is nearly complete; only error/not-found behavior is unaddressed.

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 both site_id (with its enum and URL) and tool_name are already documented. The description's only added signal is that tool_name must be the exact name, which is largely redundant with the schema's 'Exact tool name (e.g. wp_update_post)'. 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?

Specific verb and resource: returns the full inputSchema plus an example invocation for a single named tool. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings discover_tools (listing) and execute_tool (invocation), both of which are named.

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 places itself in a flow: 'Pairs with discover_tools + execute_tool for the compact discovery flow,' which tells an agent it comes after discovery and before execution. No explicit when-not-to-use or error condition for an unknown tool_name, so not a 5.

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