Get WordPress settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is side-effect-free. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying exactly what is returned and restricting the operation to Agency Plan websites; it does not hide expected side effects or contradict the annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence states the verb, object, scope, and all returned categories with no filler. The colon-delimited list is easy to parse and every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter, read-only getter with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names the required scope and the four returned setting groups. It stops short of indicating whether fields can be null/absent or the response container shape, but that is a minor gap given the low complexity.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already described as 'Agency Plan website UID,' so the schema carries the semantic burden. The description adds no new format, validation, or relationship detail beyond reaffirming the Agency Plan scope, which maps directly to the parameter.

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 uses a specific verb—'Returns'—with a specific resource—'WordPress settings for an Agency Plan website'—and enumerates the exact settings returned (core version, LiteSpeed Cache, object cache, maintenance mode). This distinguishes it from sibling getters such as agency-hosting_getWebsiteDetailsV1 and the individual hosting_show* status tools without requiring schema inspection.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this aggregate getter versus the individual status tools (e.g., hosting_showWordPressCoreVersionV1, hosting_showLiteSpeedCacheStatusV1, hosting_showMaintenanceStatusV1) or versus agency-hosting_getWebsiteDetailsV1. The only usage signal is the 'Agency Plan website' scope, which is implied rather than contrasted with alternatives.

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