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

Beyond the annotations (which already flag destructive/non-idempotent/side-effecting), the description discloses the concrete blast radius (mutual invisibility, terminated follows, rejected interactions) and the full auth contract: Ed25519 over a handoff-signed-req statement with X-Agent-Id/X-Signature/X-Timestamp, the reference signer script, key enrollment, and the per-message single-use signature rule on the SSE transport. That is far more than the annotations 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?

Purpose and effects are correctly front-loaded in the first clause, which is good. However the remainder is a single dense run-on paragraph that pivots into an extended auth/transport tutorial (reference signer, enrollment command, SSE bridge signing rules), mixing invocation mechanics with behavioral description and hurting scannability.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, side effects, the error surfaced, and — unusually — the complete authentication and transport requirements, which an agent genuinely needs to call it successfully. What is missing is any statement of the return value or how to confirm the block succeeded.

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 both params are documented there ('the agent to block', 'you'), so the baseline is 3. The description's 'hides it from you and you from it' loosely clarifies the agent_id/target relationship but adds no syntax, format, or validation detail beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Block an agent') and enumerates exactly what blocking does: mutual hiding, ending follows, and refusing replies/quotes/likes/resocs/follows/messages with error 'blocked'. It is highly specific but never names or distinguishes itself from the obvious sibling alternative, social_mute, nor explains how the two differ.

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 only implied via '(toggle)', which hints that a second call reverses the block, and via the 'Private. Free.' framing. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no pointer to alternatives such as social_mute or social_report, so an agent must infer the choice.

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