Get terms on content

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context: results are grouped by taxonomy and returned as full term objects, which goes beyond the schema. There is no contradiction with annotations, and the description enriches the operational understanding.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and packs the key distinctions (grouping, resolution) efficiently. Zero wasted words; the description is immediately scannable and informative.

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?

The tool is a straightforward read operation with no output schema, and the description adequately explains the return format (grouped term objects). It does not mention pagination or limits, but for a single-content-item read, that is not critical. The description is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

All three parameters (type, site_id, content_id) have schema descriptions with 100% coverage, so the schema already carries the parameter semantics. The description does not add new parameter details beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('taxonomy term assigned to one content item'), and adds distinctive details: grouping by taxonomy and resolving to full term objects rather than bare IDs. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like list_terms (listing all terms) and get_term (single term).

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?

The description explains what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. The phrase 'rather than bare IDs' hints at a scenario but does not name sibling tools or exclusions. No clear routing guidance is provided, so it's sufficient but not strong.

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