Read term meta

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: underscore-prefixed, WordPress-protected and credential-like keys are withheld, non-editable keys are filtered out in the no-key mode, and unknown term_id returns a not-found error. It also discloses the return shapes for both modes.

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-loaded with purpose and mode, then permissions and return shapes; every sentence carries information. It is dense with parentheticals and semicolons, which makes it slightly harder to scan than a cleaner multi-sentence layout would be.

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 and only two parameters, the description supplies exactly what is otherwise missing: the two return shapes, permission requirements, key-filtering rules, and error behavior for a bad term_id. An agent can call this correctly without further inference.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, and the description largely restates the omit-key behavior the schema describes. The added meaning (first value returned when several are stored, list shape only in the all-keys mode) is useful but sits closer to return-value documentation than parameter semantics.

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 custom meta of one term") plus the two modes: a single key or all public keys. It explicitly separates itself from wp_get_term ("the term's own fields come from wp_get_term") and from the post-meta sibling by scoping to terms.

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 clear conditions: omit the key to read all public keys, pass a key for one value, and use wp_get_term for the term's own fields. Also states the permission gate (right to assign terms of the taxonomy; edit right for a single key). It stops short of naming when a caller should prefer post/user meta siblings, but for this domain the routing is clear.

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