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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so those are covered; the description adds genuinely new context: admin-only authorization requirement, pagination behavior, an explicit enumeration of returned fields, and a guarantee that passwords/auth data are excluded. The closing 'Royally' sentence mostly restates the read-only annotation and adds little.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then filtering, then return shape and security note — a logical order with short sentences. The final sentence about the server marking it read-only is largely redundant with the annotations and could be cut.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields and the excluded sensitive data. With 7 optional parameters, a note on defaults/limits for order and orderby is the main remaining gap.

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?

With 71% schema coverage, the schema already documents page, role, search, per_page and site_id. The description only reinforces role, search and pagination and says nothing about order or orderby, which have no schema descriptions at all — the two least documented parameters.

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 ('Lists WordPress users') and adds a scope qualifier ('admin-only'), so it is distinguishable from a single-user fetch. It does not name the sibling user-listing tools (wp_list_users, wp_get_users), so an agent must infer that this is the preferred generic lister.

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?

The description implies usage ('Filter by role or search text; paginated') and states the admin-only prerequisite, which is real guidance. It gives no explicit when-not or alternative-tool routing, so the agent must infer selection on its own.

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