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

The description discloses the login requirement, the mutual DM restriction, the automatic unfollow side effect, and idempotent behavior. This adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations, which already indicate idempotency and non-destructiveness.

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 compact and well-structured, with the key login requirement first, followed by effects, use case, and idempotency. Every sentence adds useful information without 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?

For a single-parameter action with strong annotations, the description is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly. It covers the main side effects, the intended scenario, and the idempotency guarantee, which is all the context needed here.

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?

There is only one parameter and the schema covers it fully with a clear description. The tool description does not add extra parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action: block a user, and specifies the concrete effects: mutual DM restriction and automatic unfollow. It is specific and goes well beyond restating the tool name, making the tool's purpose 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?

It provides a clear usage context: use when dealing with harassment. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as when to prefer report_content or unfollow_creator instead.

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