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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing what the tool actually returns — a step-by-step plan organized by layer (DNS filtering, locked app installs, bank blocks, self-exclusion) plus what doesn't work — which matters since there is no output schema.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what the tool delivers and followed by the usage trigger. The parenthetical list of layers is dense but earns its place by previewing the plan's content; nothing is redundant.

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 single-enum, read-only advisory tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: scope, the three targets, the nature of the returned plan, and the trigger condition. There is no meaningful gap left for a caller to guess at.

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 100% and the single enum is documented in the schema itself. The description mirrors the three values as 'an iPhone, an Android phone, or at the bank,' adding only light framing (bank = bank-level blocks) rather than new syntax or selection guidance, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 pairs a specific verb ('block gambling') with the resource and names the surfaces covered (iPhone, Android, bank). It implicitly separates itself from siblings like check_gambling_site and find_self_exclusion by being the 'how to block' plan rather than a lookup, but it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger: 'Use when someone wants to block gambling sites, apps or payments.' That is a clear usage context. It stops short of stating when not to use it or pointing to the sibling tools for site checks, help finding, or self-exclusion.

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