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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered — yet the description adds real behavioral context: this is the heaviest read in the API (a cost signal that shapes call strategy), and update_block's merge semantics (omitted settings kept, lists replaced wholesale). The round-trip guarantee that the returned payload can be sent back to update_block unchanged is a non-obvious, high-value property.

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 the return contents, then cost guidance, then the update interaction — a sensible order. The final sentence is long and stacks three separate update_block rules, which costs a little readability, but every sentence carries distinct, non-redundant information.

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, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned payload categories and asserting the payload is update_block-compatible. For a 3-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, nothing an agent needs to invoke and reuse it 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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema itself thoroughly documents flowId, blockId, and the applicationId / MCP_APPLICATION_REQUIRED behavior. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond mentioning get_flow_context as the source of block ids, so the baseline of 3 applies — the schema is doing the work.

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 ('Return the complete contents of one block') and then enumerates exactly what comes back: block data, action configs, HTTP bodies, custom-code files, triggers, menu payloads, media paths. That enumeration distinguishes it from sibling readers like get_flow_context, get_module_details, and get_action_schema without opening any 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?

Explicit routing instructions: call get_flow_context first to locate the block instead of walking a flow block by block, and always read a block before updating it. It names the load/cost tradeoff and the dependent tool (update_block), so the agent knows both when to use this and what must precede it.

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