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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, and the description layers on genuinely additive facts the schema does not carry: the manage_woocommerce capability requirement, the WooCommerce dependency, and the forwarding behavior of AlphaBridge Connect to a single reachable site (consistent with openWorldHint=false). It also discloses that guest-only customers are absent, which affects result interpretation.

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 'WooCommerce: list registered users with the role customer', then return shape, then exclusions/alternatives, then prerequisites. Four short clauses, each carrying distinct information; 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, so the description compensates by enumerating the return fields and noting 'total' for paging. Combined with the annotations for safety, the stated auth/plugin prerequisites, and the sibling boundary, 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 description coverage is 100% and the search parameter is documented exhaustively (term-dependent field selection, substring matching), so the schema is doing the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about parameter syntax or interaction, only the returned fields — 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?

States a specific verb and resource with a precise scope: 'list registered users with the role customer', then enumerates the returned fields (id, email, name, order_count, total). It also carves out a boundary against the nearest sibling (wp_list_users lists every role), so an agent can pick between them 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?

Names the alternative (wp_list_users) and the exact condition that distinguishes it, plus a concrete when-not: 'Guest orders without an account are not included'. It stops short of an explicit 'use this when you need customer/order-attributed users' directive, but the routing information is clear.

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