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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that taxonomy filtering is optional but says nothing about return shape, ordering, or behavior when the post has no terms.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the optional-filter qualifier front-loaded; no wasted words.

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 simple read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It lacks detail on returned term fields, ordering, and empty-result behavior, which would help an agent use the result 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that taxonomy is an optional filter and that ID refers to a post, but doesn't specify format (term ID vs slug for taxonomy) or defaults.

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 (list) and resource (terms attached to a post), which distinguishes it from wp_add_post_terms and wp_get_terms. It's clear what the tool returns, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with the site-wide wp_get_terms sibling.

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 mention of "optionally for one taxonomy only" implies the usage pattern (pass taxonomy to narrow results) but doesn't state when to prefer wp_get_terms or how missing terms are handled. Usage is inferable but not explicit.

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