Content inventory

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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive behavior, so the description correctly adds value by disclosing output shape ('one row per item' with a detailed field list), format options (JSON/CSV), field selection, and cursor pagination. It also notes the conditional Yoast SEO field exposure. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action ('Export a content inventory'), and every clause earns its place. It packs the output contract, formats, pagination, and use cases without redundancy or fluff.

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?

For a read-only export tool with 7 fully documented optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral context: row contents, formats, pagination, and purpose. It does not detail edge cases like empty results or cursor chaining, but those are already addressed by the schema, and the description is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents each parameter (types, cursor, fields, format, status, site_id, per_page) with meaningful detail. The description adds a high-level summary (e.g., 'field selection and cursor pagination') but no additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Export') and resource ('content inventory'), enumerates the exact fields included in each row, and names the output formats (JSON/CSV). It also distinguishes this tool from sibling content tools by conveying a bulk-export/audit purpose, unlike list_content or get_content which have different scopes.

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 gives clear context: 'for content audits, migrations and spreadsheets' implies when an agent would reach for this tool — when a comprehensive, exportable snapshot is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the use-case framing provides strong implied guidance without exclusions.

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