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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only states that blocks are listed. It does not disclose whether results are paginated, sorted, or limited to direct blocks versus nested/child blocks, so the agent lacks important context about what the call actually returns.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, and the key resource and scope are immediately clear.

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 tool is simple, with one well-documented parameter and no output schema required to justify a plain listing behavior. The description is adequate for basic invocation, though richer detail about pagination or scope could push it higher.

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% and there is only one parameter, page_id, whose meaning is already documented as 'The UUID of the page.' The description's phrase 'for a specific page' adds little beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List all blocks for a specific page') and clearly states the scope. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling list_blocks_meta or search_blocks, so an agent could be unsure which block-listing tool to pick.

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 condition 'for a specific page' implies when the tool is appropriate, but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned. An agent gets only implicit usage guidance, with no routing among the many block-related siblings.

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