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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the batch execution capability (accepts ids), which is not present in annotations. It does not describe the return format, but for a get operation this is less critical, and the batch behavior is a useful extra.

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?

The description is concise and well-structured. It starts with the purpose, then lists actions, clarifies the flattened action, and mentions bulk support. Each line adds value without unnecessary verbosity.

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 description is adequate for a simple get operation. It covers the main actions and batch support, but does not describe what the tool returns (since there is no output schema) or clarify the 'account' parameter's role. Given the lack of output schema and partial parameter coverage, there is room for more detail, but the core functionality is understandable.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does describe 'cursor' as used for list, 'id' for get, and 'ids' for batch, which gives meaning to three of the four parameters. 'account' is not mentioned, but the description partially compensates for the lack of schema documentation. It does not fully document all parameters, hence not a 5.

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 clearly states that this tool handles 'Listas de bloqueio (anti-fraude) no Guru' and specifies the flattened action as 'get', distinguishing it from the sibling list and write tools. The purpose—retrieving blocklist entries by id or in bulk—is unambiguous.

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 usage by indicating 'get (id)' and mentions bulk support with 'ids', which suggests when to use this tool (when you have an id or want to batch fetch). It does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for listing you'd use guru_blocklists_list), but the mention of the list action and the flattened get action provides sufficient context to differentiate.

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