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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description's line "its server marks it read-only, so it runs straight away" largely restates that, but the added operational note (runs without confirmation) is mild value. The bigger contribution is the explicit disclosure of the response shape and the terms/taxonomy caveat with a pointer to wp_list_terms for ID resolution — real behavioral detail that annotations do not carry.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the return contract. The taxonomy/terms parenthetical is dense and slightly overwrought, but every clause still conveys information an agent would use — no filler sentences.

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 correctly takes on the burden of describing the returned object, including conditional fields (width/height/file_size for images) and the taxonomy term map. Missing only error behavior (e.g., what happens for an invalid or non-media ID) to be 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 both parameters (site_id, media_id) are already documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description clarifies that media_id identifies an attachment and adds what the returned fields mean, but adds nothing about the site_id enum parameter.

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: "Gets a single WordPress media attachment by ID." The word "single" implicitly contrasts with the list/count siblings (wp_list_media, wp_count_media), though no sibling is named explicitly and near-duplicates like royal-mcp__wp_get_media / wp_get_media_item are left undifferentiated.

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?

Usage is implied by "by ID" — you need a known media ID, obtainable from wp_list_media or wp_find_media — but the description never says this, never names alternatives, and gives no guidance on when to prefer this over the list/find tools.

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