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

Annotations already declare this read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the operation is a lookup that returns ids referenced by blocks, and it clarifies the boundary of mutation (placement is a page edit, pricing/creation happen elsewhere).

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?

Two tight sentences that front-load the returned resource before the boundary conditions. The second sentence is slightly indirect ("Placing one on the page is a page edit") but every clause carries information, with no filler.

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 single-parameter read with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies enough: what it returns, what the ids are for, and where adjacent operations live. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing, though it could be slightly more explicit about the listing scope.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the business handle. The description's phrase "on this page" is consistent with the handle concept but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 description names the resource precisely ("products and bookable offerings on this page") and states what it yields ("the ids a product or booking block refers to"), which separates it from create_product and get_product. It never uses an explicit verb like "list," relying on the name/title for that, so it falls just short of the fully self-contained 5.

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?

It routes the agent away from two adjacent operations: "Placing one on the page is a page edit" points to put_page, and "creating or pricing one is not done here" points to create_product/update_product. These are clear exclusions, though the alternatives are described by activity rather than named, so it stops short of explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance.

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