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

Annotations only declare read-only/idempotent; the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: the exact return field set, that author excludes email, the full status enumeration including the odd `false`/post-trashed case, RFC 3339 site-time dating, parent=0 semantics for top-level, and a not-found error for unknown ids.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then dense factual payload (return contract, error, permission, alternative, bridge scope) in three sentences with no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description fully specifies the return shape and edge-case status values, plus error behavior and permission needs — everything an agent needs to call it correctly on a single-site bridge.

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 comment_id parameter is already documented in the schema as 'Comment id, as wp_list_comments returns it.' The description adds no format or provenance detail beyond that, so the baseline 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?

Specific verb+resource ('Get one comment by id') with explicit contrast to the sibling lister ('wp_list_comments lists several comments with filters'). An agent can distinguish single-fetch from list-fetch without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes list-style retrieval to wp_list_comments and states the permission requirement (moderate_comments). It gives clear context for use but does not spell out when-not-to-use cases (e.g., moderation or threaded retrieval, which wp_moderate_comment/wp_reply_comment cover).

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