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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: every item carries content_length in bytes of stored post_content, and it warns that short page-builder pages can still carry very large bodies. "Read-only, runs straight away" mostly restates annotations, but the size/payload disclosure is real value.

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?

Core capability and the content_length rationale are front-loaded in two tight sentences. The trailing site host annotation and "Through Royally: read-only, runs straight away" are low-value filler given that site_id and the annotations already convey both.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description discloses the key return-shape fact (content_length per item) and the schema covers the with_content payload behavior, so an agent can call this correctly. Minor gaps remain around pagination/default counts, which are only implicit in per_page.

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 every parameter (including the include-ordering caveat and with_content truncation rules) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or interaction detail beyond the schema, leaving this at the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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 and resource ("Get WordPress posts") and adds the supported variant (custom post types). It is distinguishable from single-item siblings like wp_get_post and wp_get_page, though it never names a sibling or competing list/search tool explicitly.

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 implies a usage pattern — use content_length to size-check before pulling full bodies on page-builder sites — but that is guidance about downstream workflow, not about when to pick this tool over wp_search, wp_get_pages, or the other list tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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