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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds that the server marks it read-only and it runs without a confirmation step. It also discloses the return shape (id, slug, parent, post count, archive link), which matters because there is no output schema.

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 the resource and filters, followed by return values. The closing Royally note is largely redundant with the annotations but is short enough not to bloat the 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 9-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers taxonomy selection, the important filters, and the fields returned. A brief mention of paging defaults or site_id would make it fully self-sufficient, but nothing essential 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?

The description enumerates the filter behaviors (search, parent=0 for top level, hide_empty, ordering, paging), matching what the schema already documents at 78% coverage. It adds little beyond the schema, so the 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 ('Lists the terms of a taxonomy') and immediately scopes it to category, post_tag, or custom taxonomies. It also routes the agent to list-taxonomies for discovery, which distinguishes it from that sibling without needing the 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 tells the agent to see list-taxonomies to obtain valid taxonomy names, giving clear upstream context. It does not, however, say when to prefer this over get-term or count-terms, so exclusions are absent.

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