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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent safety, and the description adds real value beyond them: the required `list_users` capability, the not-found failure mode, the field set returned (including that `registered` is site time with UTC offset), and the single-site forwarding scope of the connection.

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 verb and lookup keys, then return shape, then prerequisites and fallbacks — each sentence carries information. The telegraphic phrasing ('Needs list_users.') is efficient, though the final AlphaBridge forwarding sentence is slightly disconnected from the rest.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned fields and their formats. Combined with auth requirement, error behavior, and sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 already documents precedence for id/login/email, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuinely new semantics not in the schema — that all three are optional yet at least one is effectively required, and that a miss is a not-found error rather than an empty result.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get one user account') plus the three lookup keys, and enumerates the returned fields. It is clearly distinguishable from wp_list_users (search) and wp_get_user_meta (meta), both of which are named.

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 the agent: partial-name lookup goes to wp_list_users (search), user meta goes to wp_get_user_meta. It also states that supplying none of the three keys, or getting no match, yields a not-found error — a concrete when-not condition.

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