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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real behavior: return shape with field meanings (count, parent), the hard 'no further pages' limit, and the permission requirement for non-public taxonomies. This is substantive context beyond the annotations.

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 the core action, then return shape, then limits/alternatives. Dense and mostly earning its place, though the field-by-field breakdown (count, parent) is slightly verbose relative to what the schema and annotations already imply.

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 carries the return contract and does so well: field list, count/parent interpretation, pagination ceiling, and permission caveat. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents search, per_page, taxonomy and hide_empty fully. The description adds return-value semantics rather than parameter semantics, so it doesn't meaningfully extend the parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('List the terms of one taxonomy') with concrete examples (categories, tags, custom) and the ordering. Explicitly contrasts with wp_get_term ('returns one term with its description'), so an agent can distinguish it from the sibling single-term read.

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?

Names wp_get_term as the single-term alternative and adds a prerequisite ('Terms of a non-public taxonomy need the right to assign them'). It doesn't explicitly route against wp_get_taxonomies or wp_create_term, but the read-only listing context is clear.

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