wp_get_seo

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the transparency burden. It explicitly labels the operation read-only, notes the REST transport requirement, and explains that SEO plugin metadata is normalized from SEOPress/Rank Math/Yoast; however, it does not mention behavior when no SEO plugin is active.

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 compact and front-loaded, leading with the action and resource, then adding mapping behavior, constraints, and parameter provenance in three concise sentences. No redundant wording.

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?

It lists the expected output fields (title, description, canonical, noindex) and prerequisites, which is enough for a simple read tool. Since there is no output schema, a note on failure/empty cases would make it fully complete, but the core context is present.

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?

Both parameters are explicitly explained: install is identified as the WP Engine install name and post_id is given a source (wp_find_page / wp_get_content). The schema itself provides only names and types, so the description adds substantial semantic value.

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 ('Read') and a specific resource ('a page/post's SEO meta'), listing the exact fields returned. This clearly distinguishes it from content retrieval tools like wp_get_content and the write counterpart wp_set_seo.

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 states the tool is read-only, which implies the write counterpart wp_set_seo should be used for modifications. It also tells the agent that REST transport is required and explains where to obtain post_id, but it does not explicitly contrast with all nearby alternatives.

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