Show the environment

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the 'manage_options' auth requirement and the caveat that network-activated plugins are not counted in the active count. It does not cover rate limits or response shape, keeping it just short of 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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then a dense but relevant enumeration of returned fields. It's a long run-on with semicolons, but nearly every clause carries information the agent needs; only slight trimming would improve flow.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly by listing the fields returned. Combined with the auth prerequisite and the sibling alternatives, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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?

With zero parameters, baseline is 4. The description reinforces this by stating 'takes no arguments', leaving no ambiguity, and matches the empty 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?

It gives a specific verb ('Get an overview of the technical environment') and then enumerates exactly what is returned: WP/PHP/MySQL versions, URLs, HTTPS, multisite, locale, theme, plugin counts, memory limit, upload size, MCP endpoint, connections. This makes the tool trivially distinguishable from siblings like wp_site_health and wp_get_site_settings.

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 explicitly routes the agent: 'wp_site_health adds debug mode, object cache and pending updates; wp_get_site_settings returns title, email, timezone and other settings.' It also states the prerequisite ('Needs manage_options') and that it takes no arguments, so when-to-use and when-to-prefer-alternatives are both spelled out.

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