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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds the operational note that it 'runs straight away' and discloses the return shape { taxonomy, total }, which matters given there is no output schema. The 'read-only' phrasing partially restates the annotation, but the added context is genuine.

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-loads purpose and return shape, then slug guidance, then the operational note—well ordered and compact. The closing 'Through Royally... marks it read-only' clause is slightly redundant with the annotations, a minor bit of low-value text.

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 count tool with no output schema, the description discloses return format, required parameter, and valid slug values—enough to call it correctly. It stops short of stating edge cases (e.g., counts for empty/hierarchical taxonomies), but overall 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema's bare 'Taxonomy slug' by naming valid example slugs ('category', 'post_tag', 'product_cat', 'product_tag') and the wp_get_taxonomies discovery path. This is useful semantic enrichment over structured data.

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 ('Counts the terms in a taxonomy and returns the total'), plus the exact return shape { taxonomy, total }. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like wp_count_posts, wp_count_media, and wp_list_terms without needing to open a schema.

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?

Provides concrete when-to-use guidance via slug examples for built-in and WooCommerce taxonomies, and points to wp_get_taxonomies for slug discovery. It does not explicitly contrast count vs. wp_list_terms (enumerate terms) or wp_get_terms, so the alternative-routing is slightly incomplete.

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