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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety bar is covered; the description still adds real value by naming the required moderate_comments capability and confirming it runs immediately. It stops short of describing result shape or 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?

Two tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. The parenthetical site name and 'Through Royally' wrapper are mild boilerplate but not disruptive.

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 zero-required-param read tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and auth. It omits what a returned comment contains and how limit/paging behaves, and post_id's filtering effect is never explained.

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 67%, with limit and site_id already documented in-schema and post_id undocumented anywhere. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get comments') plus the exact filter (status=hold) that defines the tool. This cleanly separates it from wp_get_comments and from wp_approve_comment/spam/trash siblings.

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 status=hold scoping implies the alternative (the general comment lister), but no sibling is named and there is no explicit when-to-use guidance. The capability prerequisite is the only actionable conditioning present.

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