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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, and the description adds the practical consequence ('runs straight away') plus the full return payload — meaningful because no output schema exists. It still omits edge behavior such as what happens on an unknown term_id or whether children are bounded.

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 sentences, zero waste, with the resource and returned fields front-loaded. The second sentence is slightly idiosyncratic wording ('Through Royally') but it delivers a usable conclusion rather than filler.

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, describing the returned fields is essential and done well, including the less obvious term meta and direct children. Gaps are minor: no error case for an invalid id and no note on how large the children list can be.

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% and both parameters are documented in-schema, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds 'by id', which restates rather than enriches term_id, and says nothing about site_id or the single-value enum.

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 ('Returns one term by id') and enumerates the payload (name, slug, description, parent, post count, archive link, term meta, direct children). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling list-style tools (list-terms, wp_get_terms) in substance, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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: fetch a single term when you already hold a term_id. The inclusion of term meta and direct children implicitly tells the agent it need not also call get_term_meta, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g. wp_get_terms for lookup by slug).

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