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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent safety, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: the return shape (IDs, slugs, names) and the draft caveat that category counts only include published posts. That caveat is a non-obvious trait an agent could not infer from structured fields.

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-loads the core verb and resource, then the return values, then the read-after-write rationale—each sentence adds information. The site tag and trailing 'Through Royally: read-only' line are slightly redundant with annotations but not wasteful enough to hurt.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description discloses the returned fields, so the agent knows what it gets. With the draft caveat, taxonomy scoping, and annotation-covered safety, nothing needed to call this 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 67%, and the description supplies the key semantic for the optional taxonomy parameter (omit to get all taxonomies of the post type) and the post-level scoping of post_id. It does not restate the site_id enum, but the schema already documents that fully.

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 (read taxonomy terms assigned to a post/page/CPT) plus scope (all taxonomies for the post type, or one when specified). This cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like wp_get_terms or wp_get_taxonomies, which enumerate term definitions rather than post-assignments.

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 names the scenario that selects this tool: the reliable read-after-write verification for wp_create_post and wp_add_post_terms, especially for drafts where category counts are misleading. It also explains the omit-taxonomy branch, so the agent knows how to widen or narrow the read.

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