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 agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the 'current' aspect and the optional filter but does not explain additional context like response size limits or pagination. Since annotations provide the core safety profile, the description's limited extra context yields a mid-range score.

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 a single, compact sentence that conveys the purpose and key optional filtering. Front-loaded and efficient with no redundancy.

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?

Given that the output schema exists, the return format doesn't need explanation. The tool is a simple list with optional filters, and the annotations cover safety. The description is adequate for what the tool does, though it might mention the default limit (already in schema) or hint that it only shows current blocklist items. It is complete for a read-only list operation.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, and each parameter (limit, family, status) includes descriptions and examples. The description itself doesn't add much beyond referencing the family/status filter concept, but the schema is sufficient. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents parameter semantics.

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 the tool lists the current C&C blocklist with an optional filter by malware family or status. This is a specific verb ('list') and resource ('C&C blocklist'), and the mention of the optional filter distinguishes it from simple list tools. It is also distinct from siblings like 'recent' or 'list_subscriptions' by specifying the exact data domain.

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 when you need to view the blocklist, optionally filtered. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The examples in the schema help show usage patterns, but the description itself lacks explicit guidance on when this tool is preferred over others.

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