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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description merely restates the read-only claim ('runs straight away') without adding context. It says nothing about the response shape, term caps beyond the schema default, or the openWorldHint behavior.

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, front-loaded with what it lists and followed by why it matters. The second sentence about Royally's read-only marking is largely redundant with annotations, slightly diluting an otherwise tight definition.

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 no-required-param read-only list tool with fully documented schema, the description covers purpose and intended use adequately. Only the return shape is unaddressed, which is minor given no output schema and a predictable list result.

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 all four params (site_id, post_type, terms_limit, include_terms) are already documented. The description's 'optionally their terms' loosely maps to include_terms but adds no syntax or filtering semantics beyond the schema.

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 ('Lists registered taxonomies') and scopes it with concrete examples (categories, tags, custom taxonomies) plus the optional terms embedding, which distinguishes it from the sibling list-terms tool.

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?

Gives a clear downstream purpose — categorize content via set-post-terms or the create-post 'terms' param — which tells the agent why to call it. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with list-terms or stating when to skip include_terms, so no full when/when-not guidance.

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