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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and openWorld, so 'read-only' merely restates structured data. 'Runs straight away' adds a modest amount (no confirmation step). The return shape—whether it is per-term counts or a single total—is not disclosed, and no output schema exists to cover it.

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?

A single compact, front-loaded sentence. Minor waste in the vendor branding ('Through Royally') and the anchored demo site name, which is already encoded in the site_id enum.

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 counting tool with no output schema, the description should say what the counts look like and whether an omitted taxonomy yields an error or a site-wide aggregate. Neither is covered, leaving the agent unable to predict the result with optional-only parameters.

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?

With 50% schema coverage, the taxonomy parameter has no schema description at all; the phrase 'in a taxonomy' only weakly signals that it takes a taxonomy identifier, without saying whether that is a slug, name, or registered key. The site_id enum is fully self-documented in the schema, so the description adds little there.

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 ('Get term counts in a taxonomy'), which is clearly a counting/aggregation read rather than a listing. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as wp_get_terms, wp_list_terms, or wp_count_posts, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus wp_get_terms/wp_count_posts, no preconditions, and no guidance on what happens if taxonomy is omitted (it is not a required parameter). 'Runs straight away' hints at no-confirmation execution but is not usage guidance.

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