Read site settings

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit by adding what annotations cannot express: the manage_options capability requirement and the two semantic edge cases (timezone empty under fixed UTC offset, permalink empty for plain permalinks).

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?

Three sentences, each doing distinct work: field inventory first, then edge-case semantics, then permissions/sibling routing. Zero filler and the payload 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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates well by enumerating the returned keys and flagging which can be empty. Minor gap: the return shape (single object vs array) and value formats (e.g., date format string) are not stated, but an agent has enough to call and interpret the result.

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?

Zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description only confirms 'takes no arguments', which matches the empty schema; nothing more is needed or added.

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 ('Get common site settings') and then enumerates the exact fields returned (title, tagline, url, wp_url, admin email, timezone, language, posts per page, date format, permalink). The final sentence explicitly routes versions/theme/plugins to wp_site_info, so it is distinguishable from its closest sibling without opening either schema.

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?

Gives the prerequisite ('Needs manage_options') and names the alternative for adjacent data ('Versions, theme and plugins are reported by wp_site_info'). It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use rule (e.g., don't call this for update-status checks), but the routing context is clear.

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