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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the isAgentTool default of false and the resulting behavioral split, which is genuinely useful. It omits pagination/result-size behavior, permission needs, and the rejection behavior for mismatched identifiers (that detail lives only in the schema).

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?

Four short front-loaded clauses, no filler: resource and key first, then filters, then the mode flag, then the next-step pointer. Telegraphic style but every clause carries distinct 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?

For a 7-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool it covers the calling path and the key flag well, and points to get_block_schema as the follow-up. It never describes what a returned method entry looks like (id, name, action vs trigger shape) or the role of workspaceId, leaving gaps a caller must discover by trial.

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?

At 43% schema coverage, the description supplies meaning the schema lacks: search and registerAs are identified as filters, and isAgentTool's default and mode-switching semantics are spelled out. workspaceId is left entirely unexplained in both places, which keeps it from a 5.

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 ('List the methods (actions and triggers) of one extension service') and pins the identifying triplet hostType/packageId/serviceId. This clearly separates it from the sibling list_extension_services, which lists services rather than methods.

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 explicit downstream routing ('Pass a method id to get_block_schema next') and explains which mode to pick via isAgentTool (add_block vs add_agent_tool). It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over search_extensions, only that its flag behaves 'as in search_extensions'.

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