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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — no note about pagination defaults, result caps, or what data the user records contain.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though bordering on under-specification given the tool's optional parameters and multi-site targeting.

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 read-only list tool with 0 required parameters, a fully documented schema, and no output schema, the definition is minimally viable. It leaves unaddressed how results are shaped (which user fields), pagination behavior across pages, and the multi-site targeting implied by site_id.

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%, with each of the five optional parameters documented inline (pagination, comma-separated roles, search by name/email, target site). The description only echoes the role filter, so it neither compensates nor detracts — 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 WordPress users') plus one scoping dimension (role filter), which is enough for an agent to identify the operation. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from near-neighbors like wp_get_current_user, but those siblings have clearly different scope so the ambiguity is low.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites (e.g. that site_id is needed for multi-site setups or that this returns all roles by default). The only usage hint is that role filtering is supported, which is implied by the parameter name anyway.

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