Check if WooCommerce is installed

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the behavioral scope (checks across all WordPress installations of a domain, optionally filtered by domain) but does not disclose more (e.g., return format, potential processing time). Given that annotations carry the main transparency burden, the description provides moderate added value, consistent with a baseline 3.

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 concise sentences with no redundant jargon. The core action is front-loaded, and the optional filter is mentioned logically after the primary purpose. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or unnecessary detail.

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 simple read-only check with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It clearly states the scope (any WordPress installation of a domain) and the filtering mechanism. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit return value details, but since no output schema is provided and the tool is straightforward, this is acceptable for a 4.

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%, as the parameter 'domain' already has a clear description. The tool description merely restates the filter ('Optionally filter by domain to scope the check') without adding new semantic detail. With full schema coverage, this meets the baseline without enhancement.

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 the action ('Check whether WooCommerce is installed'), the resource ('any WordPress installation of a domain'), and the optional scoping filter. It is distinct from sibling tools like hosting_checkIfWordPressInstallationsAreValidV1 or hosting_detectWordPressInstallationsV1, which address different concerns (validity, detection). No ambiguity remains about what the tool does.

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 implies the usage context (checking WooCommerce presence on WordPress installations) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any prerequisites. It lacks explicit exclusions (e.g., 'use hosting_listWordPressInstallationsV1 for details'), leaving the agent to infer the appropriate scenario. This is adequate but not fully guiding.

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