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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and open-world, so the read-only footer ('its server marks it read-only, so it runs straight away') largely restates structured data rather than adding insight. The one genuinely additive element is the disclosure of what comes back — attributes, supports, and a minimal markup example — but nothing is said about batch size limits or error behavior when a name is unknown.

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?

Return contents and the primary usage hook are front-loaded, and each of the four short sentences carries a distinct point. The trailing 'Through Royally' remark is the weakest sentence and sits awkwardly at the end.

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 correctly takes on the burden of describing the return payload, and it also covers both input modes and the workflow position. For a safe three-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, nothing essential 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 coverage is 100%, so the individual parameter descriptions already carry name, names and site_id. The description's 'pass name for one or names for a batch' usefully signals the single-vs-batch mode, but adds no format or enumeration detail beyond what the schema states.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and a precise set of return fields (attributes, supports, minimal markup example) for a clearly scoped resource: a block type's schema. It implies differentiation through 'block type' and the add-block workflow, but never explicitly contrasts itself with close siblings like get-container-schema or get-widget-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?

'Step 2 before add-block' gives a concrete workflow position and a clear trigger for calling it, and the name/names sentence states the two calling modes. It stops short of exclusions — it does not say when to reach for get-widget-schema or list-block-types instead.

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