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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by describing the return shape (top-level indices preserved, recursive named blocks with paths), but leaves 'path' and 'named block' undefined and says nothing about pagination or missing-post behavior.

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, front-loaded with the purpose and with zero filler. The second sentence is dense but slightly cryptic because it references 'blocks field' and 'all_blocks' without establishing that these are response fields.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it only partly does so: it names the two result fields without defining path format, ordering, or what happens when a post has no blocks. For a simple two-parameter read tool this is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 100% and the schema already explains that site_id must come from list_sites and must not be a URL or WordPress post ID. The description adds no additional meaning about either parameter, so the baseline of 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Lists Gutenberg blocks in a post,' which distinguishes it from sibling list tools such as wp_list_posts or wp_list_menus. It does not explicitly name an alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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 by the purpose statement; there is no explicit statement of when to choose this tool over wp_list_posts or wp_delete_block. It does helpfully explain the distinction between the two output modes (blocks vs all_blocks), which is a form of guidance for consuming the result.

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