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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds a real execution detail — the server marks it read-only so the call runs without approval — which matters for agent planning. It also discloses that `content` is raw and that `comment_approved` is the raw stored value distinct from `status`, two non-obvious behaviors. It stops short of describing failure modes (e.g., missing or trashed comment) or permission requirements.

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?

Purpose statement is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the field list and then the routing hint. The field enumeration is long but earns its place because there is no output schema; only minor tightening would be possible.

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 carries the full burden of describing the return shape and does so, including semantic traps like raw `content`, `parent` = 0 for top-level, `author` = 0 for guests, and the `status` vs `comment_approved` distinction. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret this tool 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 the baseline is 3; the description adds value by telling the agent where a valid `comment_id` comes from (`wp_list_comments`), which the schema does not say. It does not elaborate on `site_id`, but that parameter is enum-constrained and self-documenting.

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 ("Gets a single WordPress comment by ID") and immediately distinguishes itself from the list-style sibling by pointing at `wp_list_comments` for discovery. An agent can tell exactly what this returns versus what the lister returns 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?

Explicitly names `wp_list_comments` as the way to obtain comment IDs, which is the main prerequisite for using this tool. It does not state any when-not-to-use conditions, but for a single-item getter the guidance 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.