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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar for additional behavioral disclosure is lower. The description adds the 'published public' scoping constraint, which is useful context, but it does not describe return format, error behavior, or what happens when no content matches. Therefore a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence states what the tool does and how, with no filler or repetition of the title. Every word 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 simple read-only tool with two mutually exclusive parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential inputs and content scope. It could be slightly richer by explicitly mentioning how this differs from search_content, but the sibling names and parameter semantics make the tool self-explanatory enough.

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% — both id and url have descriptions in the schema. The description essentially restates those identifiers ('canonical URL or WordPress post ID') without adding new meaning, so it does not need to compensate for any schema gaps. Baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and identifies the exact resource ('one published public Filter Solutions post or page') along with the identifier modes (canonical URL or WordPress post ID). This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguishes it from siblings like search_content (which searches) and site_info (which returns site information).

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 when to use the tool: when you already have a canonical URL or post ID for a specific piece of content. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives such as search_content for query-based discovery, leaving some usage guidance to inference.

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