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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety needs no restating. The description still adds non-obvious behavior: a silent default page size of 10 when limit is omitted, and that approval status 1 means a note thread is resolved — a semantic quirk an agent could not guess. It stops short of describing ordering or what happens when offset/paged combine.

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, no filler, each adding distinct information: returned shape, filter set with the default limit, then the note-specific edge case. The most surprising fact (note/approval semantics) is placed last where it reads naturally after the filter list.

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 9-parameter read tool with no output schema and thin schema coverage, the description is largely sufficient: it covers result shape, filtering, default paging and the note mode. The gaps are pagination semantics for paged/offset and valid status values, which the schema also leaves as a bare string.

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 only 33%, so the description must carry the load, and it names six of the nine filters (post_id, status, search, user_id, author_email, type) plus the limit default. It leaves paged and offset unexplained, so an agent must guess their interaction with limit.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('List comments') and immediately enumerates the returned fields (post, author, content, date, approval status), so an agent knows exactly what it gets. The explicit note-type branch ('type set to "note" lists editor notes on posts') separates it from the sibling write tools wp_create_note/wp_update_note and from wp_get_posts.

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 enumerates the filter dimensions, which implies when the tool is useful, and the note-type sentence gives one concrete usage scenario. However, it never states when NOT to use it or names an alternative (e.g. wp_get_posts for posts, wp_update_comment for changing a comment), so routing is left to inference.

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