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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail by noting the check is 'live-checked against the site itself,' implying network access and real-time validation, and by contrasting with self-reporting. This goes beyond the annotations, though it doesn't address failure modes or rate limits.

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?

The description is two well-structured sentences with no waste. The first sentence states the action and scope, enumerates the exact checks, and the second sentence adds the live-validation method. Information is front-loaded and every clause 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?

For a single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description explains exactly what is checked and how (live vs. self-reported), giving the agent a solid mental model. It doesn't explicitly describe the return format, but the inputs and purpose are clear enough for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema fully documents the only parameter (url) with 100% coverage, including an example. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but none is needed given the schema's clarity. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Checks whether a WordPress site (or any website) is ready to be safely operated by AI agents,' and then lists the specific criteria checked (llms.txt, robots.txt directives, schema.org markup, WebMCP manifest). It gives a concrete verb, resource, and deliverables, making the purpose unambiguous and easily distinguishable from any generic readiness checker.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool by emphasizing 'Live-checked against the site itself, never self-reported.' This tells an agent the tool is for verification against actual site content rather than trusting claims. While it doesn't list alternatives, there are no sibling tools, so the guidance is sufficient for appropriate use.

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