Get WordPress Post

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavior: HTML is stripped, content_preview is expanded to up to 500 characters, and the JSON response includes the raw body. There is slight ambiguity between 'full content of the post' and the 500-character preview limit, preventing a 5.

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 well-structured: a front-loaded one-sentence purpose, a clear constraint line, compact Args, and Returns sections. There is no filler; every sentence adds relevant detail.

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 adequately describes the return shape (WPContentItem, content_preview expansion, raw body in JSON). It covers required input constraints and output behavior. It does not address error cases, but for a simple read-only tool with strong annotations, this is not a major gap. The full-content phrasing could be clearer.

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%, providing baseline 3. The description adds mutual exclusivity between id and slug, and explains response_format implications ('markdown' vs 'json' returning raw body) beyond the schema's simple enum. This extra context justifies a 4.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch a single blog post by ID or slug.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like wp_list_posts (listing) and wp_get_page (pages). It also notes the output is HTML-stripped plain text, which further separates it from raw-content retrieval tools.

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 clearly states the use case: fetching one post by id or slug, and requires at least one identifier. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as wp_get_page or wp_get_raw_content, nor does it state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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