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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that batch mode returns {widgets:[...]} and that it executes immediately without confirmation. The 'Royally ... marks it read-only' sentence largely restates the annotation rather than adding new 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?

Three compact sentences with the default behavior, batch mode, and raw mode front-loaded in a logical order. The final sentence about Royally is largely redundant with the annotations and costs some efficiency.

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?

The mode-switching behavior is well covered, but the schema declares zero required parameters, and the description never clarifies that a single lookup still needs widget_type (or types[] for batch) to return anything. For a four-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, that gap in the default path leaves an agent guessing.

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 schema already documents all four parameters including full and types. The description's mode explanation is helpful context but overlaps with the schema's own descriptions rather than adding semantics for widget_type or site_id. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 curated parameters (params, required, defaults) for a widget type'. It also distinguishes its three modes (default curated, types[] batch, full:true raw), which is a strong disambiguation. It does not, however, distinguish itself from sibling schema tools like emcp-tools-get-block-schema, get-container-schema, or elementor-list-widget-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 explains which parameter to use in which situation: pass types[] 'for a batch lookup' and full:true 'for the raw auto-generated control schema'. This is clear conditional guidance. What's missing is when to choose this tool over a sibling schema lookup tool, which the description never addresses.

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