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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so "READ-ONLY" merely restates structured data. "LIVE" does add a useful trait (fresh, non-cached data), and naming the returned fields compensates for the absent output schema, but side effects, limits and per-taxonomy behavior are left to the schema.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the mode flag and the resource, then the follow-up workflow. Nothing is redundant and nothing an agent needs to parse is buried.

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-only listing tool it covers what is retrieved, what fields come back, and how the IDs feed into post creation/update. Only the absence of any cross-reference to the other listing siblings (wp_list_posts, wp_list_sites) keeps it from being fully complete.

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 defines site_id, limit and search; the description adds no format or selection detail for them. The only extra meaning (the "Max per taxonomy" cap) lives in the schema, not the description, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Identifies the resource precisely (categories and tags / terms of a WordPress site) and even lists the returned fields (id, name, slug, post count), which lets an agent distinguish it from wp_list_posts. The listing verb is only implied by the name rather than stated in the description, so it is clear but not exemplary.

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?

"Use the ids in categories/tags of wp_create_post / wp_update_post" gives a concrete workflow and names the sibling tools that consume this output, which is exactly the when-to-use context an agent needs. It does not state when NOT to use it (e.g. versus wp_list_posts or other term sources), 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.