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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the description's burden is lighter. The description adds taxonomy scoping but says nothing about default page size, ordering, or whether an omitted 'limit' silently truncates results — meaningful for a listing tool.

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 front-loaded sentence with the core action first and the optional filters trailing. The parenthetical example earns its place by making 'terms' concrete; nothing is padded.

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 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and four parameters, the description leaves the agent guessing about the return shape and the effect of an unspecified 'limit'. The read-only annotations cover safety, but for a paginated listing tool the missing default-limit and result-shape information is a real operational gap.

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 0%, so the description has to carry the load, and it does explain three of the four parameters conceptually: taxonomy, search text, and parent term. It never mentions 'limit', nor whether 'parent' takes a term ID versus slug, nor whether search is a substring or prefix match.

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 a taxonomy') and adds a concrete example ('every category') so the resource is unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from wp_get_post_terms, wp_count_terms, or wp_get_taxonomies, so an agent must infer the boundary rather than be told.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over the closely related siblings (wp_get_post_terms for a post's terms, wp_count_terms for counting, wp_get_taxonomies for the taxonomy list itself). The 'optionally filtered' phrasing describes parameter behavior, not usage conditions or prerequisites.

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