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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, and the description reinforces the practical consequence: no confirmation gate, "runs straight away." It also adds return shape (name, title, category) despite there being no output schema, which is genuine behavioral value. Missing any note on result-size limits or pagination.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then filters, then workflow — no filler. The "Through Royally" aside is a slightly awkward parenthetical but is brief and operationally relevant.

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 zero-required-parameter, fully documented list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, filters, return fields, safety posture, and workflow position. Only minor gaps remain (result limits, whether the list is scoped to the given site_id).

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%, so all three parameters (search, category, site_id) are already documented, including the enum site. The description only restates "filter by category or search" without adding semantics such as match behavior or combining filters. 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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Lists registered Gutenberg block types") and even names the returned fields (name, title, category). It distinguishes itself from generic readers by framing itself as the discovery step of a block-page workflow. It does not, however, differentiate itself from near-name siblings like wp_list_block_types or wp_list_blocks.

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?

The explicit pipeline "list-blocks -> get-block-schema -> add-block" tells the agent exactly when this tool belongs in a sequence, which is strong usage guidance. It stops short of stating exclusions (e.g., use X instead if you only need existing post blocks) but the contextual cue is clear.

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