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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does disclose that this is a non-mutating listing operation, that filtering is optional, and that its output feeds set_condition_parts. It omits anything about return format, ordering, or whether the list is static, which keeps it out of the top band.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the filter detail and the follow-up tool. No redundant wording or restatement of the name.

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 single-optional-parameter list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, filter values, and the consuming tool, which is enough to invoke it correctly. A note on what an operator value looks like would round it out.

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% and propertyType is a bare string with no enum in the schema, so the description's enumeration of the seven accepted type values is substantive added meaning. It does not explicitly map the filter to the parameter name propertyType, but the correspondence is easy to infer.

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 scoped to a condition block's conditionParts, which no sibling tool covers. An agent can distinguish it from list_block_types or get_block_schema without opening the 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?

Makes the filter optional and names the downstream tool (set_condition_parts) where the results belong, giving clear workflow context. It does not state exclusions or when to skip the filter, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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