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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful context by noting that non-approve statuses require moderate_comments and that approved comments are the default, though it repeats the read-only trait and does not discuss pagination behavior.

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 purpose and default behavior are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the remaining sentences add permission and safety context efficiently. Minor redundancy appears in the site parenthetical and the read-only note that overlaps with annotations.

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 helpfully lists the returned fields (id, post_id, author, content, date, status). It also covers the critical permission distinction for status filtering; only minor details such as pagination behavior are left to the schema.

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 schema already documents status, post_id, site_id, and per_page. The description adds a little value by stating that status defaults to approved and mentioning the moderate_comments permission, but the schema itself already explains the permission requirement for status values, leaving this at the baseline for a fully documented schema.

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: listing comments on the site or a specific post, and lists key returned fields. It is clear enough to distinguish from single-comment retrieval, but it does not explicitly name or distinguish sibling tools such as wp_get_pending_comments or wp_list_comments.

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?

Explains the default behavior (approved comments unless status is passed) and the permission requirement for non-approved statuses. It gives clear usage context but does not explicitly say when to prefer a sibling tool or when not to use this one.

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