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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context by enumerating the returned customer fields, but says nothing about pagination behavior, total-count semantics, or result limits for a listing tool.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the operation is front-loaded and the return-value sentence earns its place given there is no output schema. Slightly under-detailed rather than verbose.

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 listing the key return fields, and the annotations cover safety. Gaps remain around pagination defaults (default 20 / max 100) and whether results are scoped to the targeted site_id, but the essentials for calling the tool are present.

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 71%, so most parameters are self-documented (page, per_page, search, role, site_id) while order and orderby are bare enums. The description's generic "with filters" adds essentially 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List WooCommerce customers") and names the domain, which separates it from the generic wp_list_users sibling. However it never explicitly contrasts itself with the singular woo_get_customer or with wp_list_users, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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?

"with filters" hints at bulk/query use but gives no when-to-use conditions, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives such as woo_get_customer for a single customer or wp_list_users for non-WooCommerce users. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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