Read profile fields

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

Annotations declare read-only/idempotent, and the description adds real value beyond them: the fixed key allowlist, the exact refusal behavior for other keys, the permission model (list_users + edit rights, admin in standard roles), and the not-found error for an unknown user_id. Consistent with readOnlyHint; no contradiction.

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 constraints, then return shape, then permissions. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the allowlist and permission sentences could be slightly tightened.

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 exists, and the description compensates by describing both return shapes ({user_id, key, value} and {user_id, meta: {...}}). With the allowlist, permission model, and error behavior covered, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning: it enumerates the valid values for `key` and states that omitting it returns all fields, which is only partly mirrored in the schema. It also notes where author ids come from, though that duplicates the schema text.

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 standard profile fields (user meta) of one user') and immediately clarifies the two modes: one field or all of them. Clearly distinct from siblings like wp_get_user (full profile) and wp_get_term_meta (terms).

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 defines the allowlist of readable keys and states that any other key is refused, plus the permission requirements and not-found behavior. It does not explicitly contrast against wp_get_user or wp_list_users, so the alternative-selection guidance is implicit rather than stated.

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