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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), but the description adds real value by detailing the return shape—per-block paths, editability signals, and namespace-level stats—which annotations cannot convey. The 'runs straight away' note reinforces there is no approval gate. Minor deduction for restating read-only twice.

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 content description is front-loaded and dense with useful detail. However, the trailing 'Read-only... Through Royally: read-only, runs straight away' repeats the read-only claim three times, which is redundant padding.

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 carries the burden of explaining returns, and it does so thoroughly—covering per-block fields, editability, and aggregate stats. An agent has enough to know what it will receive, though a note on size/pagination for large posts is absent.

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 all four parameters are already documented, including the path and max_depth semantics. The description's 'use the paths' phrasing loosely ties to the path parameter but adds no syntax or depth behavior beyond the schema—baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opening 'Block tree of a post' states a specific resource (block tree) and enumerates exactly what each node carries (path, name, attributes, preview, inner count, editability). This clearly distinguishes it as a structural-introspection tool, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling it should be preferred over.

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?

'Use the paths with the other block tools' gives a downstream-usage hint, implying this is a preparatory step before block mutation tools. But it never states when to choose this over alternatives like wp_get_post or wp_validate_blocks, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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