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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: discloses that underscore-prefixed, protected, and credential-like keys are withheld, that keys the account cannot edit are excluded from the all-keys listing, the exact return shapes including multi-value behavior, the required capability (assign terms, or edit term for a single key), not-found behavior, and the AlphaBridge forwarding scope.

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded, then permissions, return shapes, and error behavior follow in a logical order. The sentences are long and packed with clauses, which makes it dense, but almost nothing is redundant filler.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers return shapes, permissions, error behavior, filtering rules, and alternative tooling. An agent has everything it needs to call this 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 both parameters are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description does add value by explaining what omitting the key returns and the permission difference between the all-keys and single-key modes, but it largely restates the schema's key semantics.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ("Read custom meta of one term") and immediately scopes it to one key or all public keys. It is clearly separable from wp_get_term ("the term's own fields come from wp_get_term") and from wp_get_post_meta/wp_get_user_meta by naming the object type.

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 routes the agent to wp_get_term for the term's own fields, which is the main ambiguity an agent would face. It does not name the write counterpart (wp_update_term_meta) or state when not to call it, so it falls short of a 5.

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