Get installation JWT token

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 useful context (the token includes MCP endpoint authentication and how the software id is sourced), but it does not disclose token properties like expiration, scope, or format. Similar to the get_calls calibration, the description adds some context beyond annotations but omits behavioral detail.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core purpose, the second tells where to supply the identifier, and the third explains how to source it. No fluff or redundancy; information is front-loaded.

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 token retrieval with annotations covering safety and schema covering parameters, the description is mostly sufficient. The main gap is that 'username' is not explained—its schema description is just 'username parameter'—so an agent may not know which username to supply. The token itself and the source of 'software' are described, but the username gap prevents a higher score.

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%, providing baseline 3. The description adds extra meaning for 'software' by clarifying it goes in the path and showing exactly where to get its value. The 'username' parameter is not elaborated, but the additional software-guidance justifies a score above baseline.

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 states a specific action ('Return a JWT token') and a specific resource ('the specified WordPress installation, including its MCP endpoint'). It clearly communicates what the tool does and distinguishes it from other hosting/WordPress tools that manage installations rather than emitting auth tokens.

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 gives clear context: the token is for authenticating requests against a WordPress installation, and it explains how to obtain the required software identifier. It does not explicitly name when not to use the tool or compare it to alternatives, but the intended use case is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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