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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context — that resources are read-only reference data (design guidelines, usage guides, configuration) and that unlike tools they perform no actions. It loses a point for the closing sentence "its server marks it read-only, so it runs straight away," which merely restates the annotation rather than adding behavioral detail.

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 core purpose and the read-resource handoff are front-loaded in the first two sentences. The trailing line about the Royally server is awkwardly worded and partly redundant with the annotations, so it does not fully earn its place, but the rest is tight.

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 compensates by saying exactly what comes back — resource URIs with descriptions — plus what those resources contain and how to consume them. For a zero-required-parameter discovery tool, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 single site_id parameter already carries an enum and a human-readable site description, so the schema does the work. The description never mentions site_id or that the enumeration is scoped to one site, adding nothing beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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 all available Elementor MCP resource URIs with descriptions") and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling elementor-read-resource, which fetches the content behind those URIs. An agent can tell the two apart without opening either 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?

Explicitly names the when ("Use this to discover what resources can be fetched with read-resource") and the follow-up tool ("After discovering resources with this tool, use read-resource with the URI"). The discovery-then-fetch workflow is spelled out with no inference required.

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