Read site options

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the autoloaded-options/bloat observation, which is a mild diagnostic hint. No contradiction with annotations. It doesn't disclose return format or pagination, which is a minor gap given the annotation coverage.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence about autoloaded options adds real diagnostic context rather than fluff, but it is slightly ornamental and not strictly load-bearing for calling the tool correctly.

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?

Reasonably complete for a read-only tool with zero required parameters and 100% schema coverage. The description explains what the tool is for and when it matters (configuration reads, bloat diagnosis). No output schema and simple return semantics make further detail unnecessary.

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%, so all four parameters (limit, names, search, site_id) are already well documented in the schema. The description adds little parameter-level value beyond the word 'browsing' implying the search/limit interplay. Per baseline, 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the load.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Read values from the WordPress options table by name.' It names the exact storage location (options table) and the access mechanism (by name), and the 'where plugins and themes keep their configuration' clause distinguishes it from get_site_settings and get_theme_mods. An agent can distinguish it from the set_option sibling without opening the 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?

Provides useful context for when to use it — reading plugin/theme configuration and spotting database bloat via autoloaded options. However, it never names alternatives or states when NOT to use it (e.g., no mention that set_option is the write counterpart, or that get_site_settings handles non-option settings). Context is implied rather than explicit.

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