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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: 'PASSIVE hygiene assessment from public signals', 'no intrusion', 'Flags security practice, not exploitable vulnerabilities', and describes the return value (0-100 score with remediation). No contradictions.

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 concise (multiple sentences) and front-loaded with the key purpose. Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (security assessment), the description covers what it checks, what it detects (user enumeration, dir listing, headers, etc.), that it's passive, who should use it, pricing, and the output format. Output schema exists, but the textual description already explains the return value sufficiently.

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?

Only one parameter (url) with schema description 'WordPress site URL to assess (homepage)'. The description does not add further meaning beyond the schema, but schema coverage is 100%, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'WordPress security posture check' and lists specific checks (version disclosure, xmlrpc.php, user enumeration, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on WordPress security and clarifying it flags security practices, not vulnerabilities.

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 'For site owners and authorized auditors' and implies use for WordPress sites via passive assessment. It doesn't provide explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is clear.

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