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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value the annotations cannot: since there is no output schema, it enumerates what is actually returned (login name, email, creation date) and frames the diagnostic interpretation of those fields.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the capability and followed by the use case; nothing is redundant. The second sentence is slightly elaborate, but the forensic framing is operational value rather than 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?

For a two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the returned data, and the scenario that motivates calling it, while annotations carry the safety profile. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (domain, site_url) are already documented in the schema with examples and the multi-installation condition. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a precise verb and resource ('Listet alle Benutzer mit Administratorrechten einer WordPress-Installation') and enumerates the returned fields (Anmeldename, E-Mail-Adresse, Anlagedatum). This clearly separates it from siblings like get_wordpress_sites, get_wordpress_status or reset_wordpress_admin_password 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?

It gives an explicit triggering scenario: the forensic first look after a suspected breach ('Nach einem vermuteten Einbruch der erste Blick'), including the heuristic that an unknown, recently created admin account stands out. It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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