wp_seo_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly communicates the read-only nature through 'Check' and 'Returns', and adds scope details ('all published pages and posts') and output type ('list of content missing meta descriptions'). It does not discuss side effects, but the wording implies none.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and ending with the output. No filler or redundant information.

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 only two params and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It covers purpose, scope, and output. Missing info like return format or edge cases is not critical for this tool class.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context around 'all published pages and posts' which aligns with the post_type parameter, but does not provide new parameter-level detail beyond what is already in the schema.

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?

Uses a specific verb 'Check' with a clear resource 'SEO meta description status' and scope 'all published pages and posts'. Clearly distinguishes from sibling wp_seo_fix, which implies fixing rather than checking.

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 explicitly states what it does (checks status) and what it returns (list of missing meta descriptions), making it clear this is a diagnostic tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the scope and output strongly imply when to use it versus tools like wp_seo_fix.

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