Read SEO title and description

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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotent annotations: it discloses the capability requirement ('needs the right to edit the post'), the error behavior for an unknown post_id, and the silent-degradation behavior (fields absent plus an explanatory note) on unsupported plugins. Those are exactly the traits an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

Four tight sentences, zero filler. The return shape and the primary failure/degradation modes are front-loaded before the sibling reference, which is where an agent needs them.

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 carries the burden and does so: it names the returned fields ({post_id, provider, title, description, focus_keyword}), the empty-value convention, and the fallback note. Nothing needed to call it correctly or interpret the result 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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that exactly one post is read and that an unknown post_id is an error, but adds no format or type detail beyond the schema.

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 (get/read) and precise resource (SEO title, meta description, focus keyword of one post) with the plugin scope (Yoast SEO or Rank Math). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling wp_seo_detect, so an agent can pick the right tool 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?

Names the alternative routing case clearly: 'wp_seo_detect reports the active plugin alone,' and explains the degradation path when AIOSEO or no supported plugin is present. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling wp_get_post_meta, which could plausibly return the same underlying meta, so a small inference is left.

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