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

Annotations already declare readOnly/no-destructive, but the description adds real context: capability is resolved dynamically per taxonomy (cap->assign_terms), and it confirms the call executes without a confirmation gate ("runs straight away"). It also discloses that `url` can be null when WordPress cannot build an archive link, which no annotation covers. Minor deduction because the cap->assign_terms detail is unexplained and slightly at odds with a pure read operation.

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-loaded with purpose and required params, then return shape, then routing rule — a logical order with no filler. The return-field enumeration is long but earns its place because there is no output schema.

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 supplies the full return field list and flags the null-url case, plus permission resolution and execution behavior. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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% and both required parameters are already documented in the schema, including taxonomy slug examples. The description restates them and adds one extra example (product_brand) but no format or edge-case guidance beyond what the schema gives, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Gets a single term from any taxonomy") with the explicit scope qualifier "any taxonomy," which separates it from the category/tag-specific siblings. An agent can distinguish it from wp_get_category and wp_get_tag without opening 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?

Explicitly routes the agent: "Use this for custom taxonomies that the category/tag-specific tools cannot reach," naming the alternative tool family and the condition that selects this one. Preconditions are also stated via the required-parameter list.

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