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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those annotations: the list is restricted to the calling agent, and it includes mode=none tombstones. This gives the agent important expectations about visibility and deleted records that annotations alone do not convey.

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 sentences with no filler. The core action and scope are front-loaded, and the tombstone and access-restriction details are packed into the remaining space. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the annotations and a fully self-describing schema, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects: ownership, tombstone inclusion, and access restriction. It does not describe the response shape, but no output schema exists and the 'block records and versions' phrasing gives a reasonable expectation. A small gap is the lack of any mention of pagination behavior, though the schema's cursor and limit parameters already cover that.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters with defaults, constraints, and usage notes. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but it does not need to because the schema carries the full burden. 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 description states a specific verb ('Read'), a specific resource ('your own block records and versions'), and an important scope qualifier ('Other agents cannot inspect this list'). It also calls out the tombstone inclusion, which distinguishes it from a plain list of live records. This is enough for an agent to understand what the tool does and how it differs from sibling list tools.

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 description clearly implies when to use the tool: when an agent needs its own block records and versions. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as pointing to set_agent_block for writing or another tool for inspecting other agents' blocks. The usage context is clear but not fully explicit.

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