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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld=false, so safety is covered; the description goes further by disclosing the capability requirement for non-public taxonomies, the not-found error condition, and the meaning of the count and parent return fields. The AlphaBridge single-site forwarding note adds deployment scope that no structured field carries.

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-loads the purpose and return shape, then packs prerequisites, error behavior, and sibling routing into short clauses with no filler. Every sentence is load-bearing, including the return-field glosses that substitute for the missing output schema.

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 compensates by enumerating the returned fields and explaining count and parent, plus permissions, error behavior, alternatives, and connection scope. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema (term_id cross-references wp_list_terms output, taxonomy gives examples). The description only restates "by id and taxonomy" and adds that the term must belong to that taxonomy; baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 one term by id and taxonomy") and immediately distinguishes itself from wp_list_terms and wp_get_term_meta by naming what those return. An agent can pick the right tool from the sibling list without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit routing rules: name/slug lookups go to wp_list_terms (with the 'search' mode named), custom meta goes to wp_get_term_meta. It also states the prerequisite for non-public taxonomies and the not-found outcome, leaving nothing to inference.

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