Get ACF Options Page Fields

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable context: the prerequisite plugin, the exact REST endpoint, and the return shape. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise and well-organized, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage, args, and returns. Every section contributes, and there is no redundant filler beyond the acceptable inline parameter reference.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the return structure. It also covers the required plugin, endpoint, usage context, and all parameter defaults/enums, making it complete for a read-only tool.

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 100% (all three params have descriptions). The description's Args section essentially mirrors the schema without adding new meaning. It does not clarify behavior beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states it reads fields from an ACF Options page, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes this from page-specific content by noting it's for global site content, setting it apart from sibling tools like wp_get_post.

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 provides clear usage context: 'Use this for Stagehand's global site content... that aren't stored on a specific page.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the contrast with page-specific content implies the distinction.

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