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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint, but the description goes beyond them by disclosing the differing return shapes (array vs. paginated object with total/total_pages/ignored_args) and which stock fields each row carries. The trailing '(site: demo.royalplugins.com) Through Royally: read-only, runs straight away' mostly restates annotations and site_id, adding little.

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?

Purpose and the no-page/with-page distinction are front-loaded, and the pagination recipe follows immediately. The only removable content is the site URL and the 'read-only, runs straight away' clause, which duplicate structured fields.

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 13 parameters and no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so adequately by naming the envelope fields and the per-row stock attributes. An agent could call it correctly, though it would still need to discover other row fields empirically.

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 baseline is 3 and the schema already documents all 13 parameters including defaults and enums. The description adds only the page-to-response-shape relationship and reiterates per_page's default/max, which is marginal value over the schema text.

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 ('Get WooCommerce products'), which is unambiguous about what the tool returns. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the singular sibling wc_get_product or wc_get_store_stats, so an agent must infer the plural/listing distinction from the name alone.

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?

Gives concrete operational guidance: without page you get a flat array, with page you get an envelope, and you should 'iterate page until page >= total_pages to list a whole catalog.' That is a clear when/how-to-use recipe with no exclusions against alternatives.

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