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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds real value beyond them: passwords and auth data are explicitly never returned, and the is_admin flag carries a documented downstream consequence. The read-only/auto-run note restates the annotation rather than adding to it, which keeps this from a 5.

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?

The return payload is front-loaded in the first sentence and the privacy constraint follows immediately. The final Royally sentence is slightly awkward and partly redundant with the annotations, but nothing is padded.

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 correctly compensates by listing the returned fields, the excluded sensitive fields, and the meaning of the is_admin flag. An agent has enough to call it and interpret the result; a note on invalid-ID behavior would complete it.

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% with only two parameters, both documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description says nothing about the `id` (that it must be a numeric WP user ID) or about when `site_id` matters, so it adds no meaning over the structured fields.

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?

It states a specific verb and resource ("Returns one user's detail") and enumerates the exact fields returned, so the agent knows precisely what comes back. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the many sibling user-lookup tools (e.g. emcp-tools-list-users, royal-mcp__wp_get_user) or indicate how to obtain the required ID.

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?

Usage context is only implied: the parenthetical that admin users are "off-limits to update-user" hints at a downstream workflow, and the Royally note explains why it executes without approval. There is no explicit statement of when to pick this over list-users or another get-user sibling, nor any prerequisite about the caller's permissions.

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