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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses array semantics, per-position error objects ({ type, error }) rather than whole-call failure, the operationId restriction, and the reduced return shape. It omits permission/auth requirements and any cost or rate considerations, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

The content is dense and front-loaded, with the primary purpose in the first clause and the caveats following. The telegraphic semicolon-chained style is compact but slightly harder to scan than plain sentences; every clause does carry information, so nothing is wasted.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers return fields, error modes for batch calls, the alternate operationId response shape, and the cross-tool call ordering. The only material omission is workspaceId meaning and whether returned values are pre-resolution or expression-bearing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for two of three parameters: `type` gets its accepted forms, valid sources, array behaviour and invalid-value handling, and `operationId` gets its single-type constraint and effect on the response. `workspaceId` is never explained, leaving one gap in an otherwise strong compensation.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Return a block type's fields, params, sampleResult, connectionInfo/connections, serviceConfig and guide") and enumerates the payload, so the agent knows exactly what it gets back. It further distinguishes the tool from neighbours by stating which identifiers are acceptable and explicitly excluding agentTools ids and knowledge bases.

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?

It gives an explicit precondition ("Call before add_block / configure_block of that type") and routes the agent to the correct source tools (list_block_types, search_extensions, list_extension_methods). It also states when the operationId variant applies and its restriction, leaving little to inference.

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