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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it discloses that the raw content is read with edit context, so the `edit_post` capability check applies — a real auth prerequisite. It also explains path addressing semantics (non-empty classic HTML counted as `core/freeform`, whitespace gaps skipped) and notes the Royally server marks it read-only so it runs without approval.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and the sibling routing, then parameters, then the return shape. It is dense but nearly every clause carries information; the inline return-shape enumeration is doing necessary work given no output schema exists.

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 supplies the full return contract (post_id, block_count, blocks array fields, children vs has_children beyond depth). Combined with permission disclosure and sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: `path` is defined as addressable-block indexes (three paragraphs = 0, 1, 2) and `depth` semantics interact with `path` ('depth counts from it'). That is more than the schema states, though `post_type` REST-base nuance is only echoed.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns the Gutenberg block tree of a post, page or custom post type item as structured data instead of raw markup.' It distinguishes itself from wp_update_post_blocks (write path) and wp_get_block (synced patterns), so an agent can select it without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly states 'read this before editing blocks with `wp_update_post_blocks`' and routes synced patterns (wp_block posts) to `wp_get_block`. Both a when-to-use and a when-to-use-something-else are named, which is more than most definitions offer.

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