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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by specifying the returned attributes and framing the analytical intent (spotting unrecognized or newly created admin accounts). It omits pagination or permission details, but those are minor for a read-only listing.

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 tight sentences: the first front-loads what the tool does and returns, the second supplies the investigative use case. No redundancy or wasted wording.

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 naming the returned fields, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a read-only listing tool with only two well-documented parameters, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, so both parameters (domain, site_url) are already fully documented in the schema, including the note that site_url is only needed for multiple installations. The description adds no parameter-level detail, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 (listet) plus resource (Benutzer mit Administratorrechten einer WordPress-Installation) and enumerates the returned fields (Anmeldename, E-Mail-Adresse, Anlagedatum). This clearly separates it from siblings like reset_wordpress_admin_password or get_wordpress_sites without opening a 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?

Provides a concrete usage scenario — the first check after a suspected intrusion, looking for unknown accounts or ones with recent creation dates. It does not name an alternative tool or state exclusions, so it stops short of the top level, but the when-to-use context is clear and actionable.

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