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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine domain context beyond that: blocked entries are never emailed by any campaign, the default spans workspace plus account-wide lists, and each entry reports its source list. It omits pagination/return-shape detail, but that is minor given the annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the return semantics, then the default scope, then the per-entry provenance field. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition.

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?

A read-only list tool with no output schema and fully documented parameters; the description conveys the domain meaning of the data and default scope. Minor gap: it does not hint at result ordering/paging interaction with limit/offset, though the schema covers those parameters.

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 limit, scope, offset, and search, including defaults and enum meanings. The description restates the default scope behavior but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline of 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('returns the suppression entries... blocked domains and email addresses') plus scope and ordering ('newest first'). An agent can distinguish this list tool from the singular get_blocklist_entry sibling without opening either schema.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the description explains the default scope ('spans both lists') but never says when to call this instead of get_blocklist_entry or get_blocklist_entry's filtered variants. No explicit when-not guidance is provided.

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