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

The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: archived components are never listed, and every response carries `capabilities` (can_create, can_edit, can_add_to_page) gated by user and license tier. That is real added value. However, the trailing text is truncated into an unreadable fragment ('- `id`: numeric post ID used in r… Through Royally: its server marks it read-only'), so part of the disclosed behavioral detail is lost.

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?

The numbered two-step block is front-loaded and scannable, and most sentences earn their place. But the final bullet is cut off mid-word into an incoherent fragment that mentions an unrelated server behavior, and the capabilities list partly repeats what the schema description already says about omitting `component_ids`.

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 read-only discovery tool with no output schema, the description covers the important ground: what discovery returns (`id`, `name`, `uid`), what the schema call adds (`overridable_props`), the capability flags, and the archived-exclusion rule. The truncation and the absence of any note on ordering or failure modes keep it short of a 5.

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 would be 3, but the description goes well past it: `component_ids` is framed as 'the id(s) you actually intend to place', must be batched into one call, and omitting it switches the tool into discovery mode. That semantic (the same parameter toggles response shape) is not obvious from the schema alone.

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 ('Returns the components available on this site') and then defines what a component actually is (a user-defined reusable composition of widgets stored as a post, embeddable via `<e-component>`). The reference to `elementor/build-composition` makes its role relative to that sibling explicit, so an agent can place it without opening the schema.

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 an explicit two-step protocol: no-argument discovery first, then a batched call with `component_ids` for the schemas you actually need. It names the failure mode ('requesting schemas for every component is wasteful on sites with many components') and tells the agent to always discover first, which is exactly the when/when-not guidance the dimension asks for.

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