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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the refusal policy for protected/unpublished/noindex items and by naming the three output representations, which is exactly the kind of context an agent needs.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The core action and accepted identifier forms come first and the refusal constraint second, so the most important information is front-loaded.

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 simple read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (Markdown/text/metadata) and what is rejected. It could have noted that the URL must be same-site/canonical on oleba.pl or pointed to a discovery tool, but nothing critical is missing.

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%: the identifier param is documented while format is only an enum with a default. The description restates the accepted identifier forms (numeric ID, slug, same-site URL) and echoes the three format values, but adds little syntax or meaning beyond what the schema already conveys.

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+resource: resolve a single public WordPress item and return Markdown/text/metadata. The scope word 'public' and the plural/singular distinction implicitly separate it from siblings like search_site and list_services, though no sibling is 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?

It gives a useful when-not clause (password-protected, unpublished, noindex content is refused), which is more than most tools. However it never tells the agent how to obtain the identifier or points to search_site as the discovery alternative, so the 'when to use vs alternatives' guidance remains implied.

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