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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses that a missing dependsOn value is rejected with the offending param named, and that results are paginated via cursor and filterable via search. It does not explain what happens when the param has no dictionary (the stated precondition) or any rate/limit behavior, leaving some behavior undisclosed.

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?

Every clause conveys real information, but it is delivered as a single run-on stream of semicolon-joined fragments rather than front-loaded, structured guidance. An agent gets the facts but no scannable separation between purpose, prerequisites, and result handling.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does define the return shape (label + value pairs) plus pagination, which is what the agent needs. Against 7 parameters at 29% schema coverage, the main residual gaps are workspaceId and the behavior for params without a dictionary, so it is nearly but not fully complete.

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 only 29%, so the description must compensate, and it does for connectionId (OAuth-only, sourced from get_node_details tools[] or absent for unadded blocks), dependsOnValues (keyed by param name, sourced from get_node_details fields), search, and cursor. paramName is only implied ('a param whose… entry') and workspaceId is never addressed, keeping it below 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return the current options (label + value) of a param whose get_block_schema entry has a non-null dictionary.' That precondition (non-null dictionary) also distinguishes it from generic schema-lookup siblings like get_block_schema. It falls short of 5 only because the sentence is so dense that an agent must parse a nested clause before grasping that this is an option-enumeration endpoint.

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 supplies concrete conditional guidance: pass connectionId only for OAuth services, populate dependsOnValues for each param listed in the entry's dependsOn, and use search/cursor for filtering and paging. It also closes the loop by telling the agent where the result goes (configure_block / configure_agent_tool params and labels[paramName]). No explicit 'do not use this when…' exclusion is given, so it stops short of a 5.

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