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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It adds useful non-obvious behavior: as_of returns historical state, and sort/search execute over all block rows, not the displayed page. It does not state read-only safety, authentication/billing requirements, or rate limits, which would be material in the absence of 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 short sentences with no filler, and each sentence contributes a distinct point: list scope, historical semantics, and database-wide search/sort behavior. It loses one point because the opening sentence is oblique rather than a direct statement of the operation.

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 detailed schema and output schema carry most of the load, and the description covers the two non-obvious runtime behaviors. However, with no annotations, authentication/billing via npub and the read-only safety profile are left implicit rather than stated in the description.

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 93%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds value beyond the schema by explaining as_of's historical semantics and by disclosing that sort/search operate across the whole block. It does not add parameter syntax, but the extra behavioral nuance is genuinely helpful.

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 title and description together identify the resource: a page of records for things grown, watched for, or seen on a plot, which maps to the planting/pest/wildlife/observation kinds in the schema. It lacks an explicit 'Lists...' verb, but the intent is recoverable and distinguishable from sibling block_list and block_item_save 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 implies when to use the tool: fetching block-item records, including historical state via as_of, and clarifies that sorting/searching span the block's full data rather than the page. It never names alternatives or gives when-not-to-use guidance, leaving an agent to infer selection from the sibling names.

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