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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds what they cannot: the required capability ('Needs list_users'), that results are paged, the exact field set returned (id, login, email, name, roles), and that 'total' counts matches across all pages. The AlphaBridge forwarding note also clarifies the single-site scope, consistent with openWorldHint=false.

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-loads purpose and pagination, then alternatives, then return shape. Dense but almost every clause carries information; the compression in the alt-sibling sentence ('One account with first and last name and registration date: wp_get_user') is terse but readable.

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's return-field summary and the cross-page 'total' semantics are exactly what the agent needs. Pagination, capability requirement, filtering options and the single-site forwarding scope are all covered.

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 schema already documents page, role, search matching rules and per_page clamping in detail. The description only restates that filtering by role or search term is possible, adding nothing beyond the schema, 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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('List the user accounts of this site') plus the exact scope: paginated, optionally filtered by role or search term. It is clearly distinguishable from wp_get_user and wp_get_user_meta, which are named as different operations.

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: 'One account with first and last name and registration date: wp_get_user; profile fields: wp_get_user_meta.' That is clear alternative-routing. It does not name an exclusions case (e.g. when not to page through the list), so it stops short of a full when/when-not statement.

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