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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description still adds substantial behavior: plugin auto-detection (Yoast, Rank Math, AIOSEO, SEOPress, SEObolt), which plugins return four core fields vs OG fields, and the critical caveat that values are raw templates. Loses a point only because return shape (types, empty-value behavior) is only implied rather than stated.

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?

Well front-loaded: what it returns, then plugin behavior, then the template caveat and the alternative tool. The trailing '(site: demo.royalplugins.com) Through Royally: read-only, runs straight away' partially repeats annotation/schema data, but the rest earns its place.

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, so the description carries the return-value burden, and it delivers: field list, per-plugin variation, and the raw-vs-rendered distinction that prevents misuse. An agent can call it correctly and interpret results without further documentation.

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 50% and the description never explains post_id semantics (target post vs. any post type) or clarifies site_id beyond the enum note already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the small parameter set, but the description adds no parameter-level value.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get the SEO meta fields for a post') and enumerates exactly which fields are returned. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming wp_audit_seo_bulk as the tool for measured values and by implication contrasting with wp_update_seo_meta.

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?

Explicit when-not guidance: 'do NOT measure length from these values' and 'For measured/rendered SEO values, use Royal MCP Pro's wp_audit_seo_bulk.' Combined with the read-only framing, an agent knows precisely which SEO-meta tool to pick for raw vs. rendered data.

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