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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate mutability. It does add genuinely new behavior — that the lookup recurses through row/column/container/grid children — but says nothing about what happens to a removed container's child blocks or whether the operation requires a published/unpublished page state.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the action stated first and the lookup nuance second. Nothing repeats the name or title and nothing could be cut without losing 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?

The output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. What's missing for a destructive nesting-aware operation is the consequence for child blocks and any state precondition on the page, leaving a modest gap for an agent deciding whether the call is safe.

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 100%, so all four UUID parameters are already documented with types and provenance (event_id from search_events). The description only reinforces that block_id is resolved by searching nested structures, adding little beyond the schema's 'Block ID within the section.' Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Remove a block from a registration site section') and its subject is clearly distinct from delete_site_page, remove_site_section, and update_site_block. The second sentence adds scope: the block may live anywhere in the nested tree, not just at the section's top level.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer you call this when a block must be deleted rather than reordered or updated. There is no explicit prerequisite (does the page need to be a draft?), no warning that deletion is final, and no mention of add_site_block/reorder_site_blocks as related operations.

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