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

The 【需要登录】 (requires login) tag adds an auth prerequisite beyond what annotations provide. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety and mutability are covered. The description doesn't mention pagination or whether blocks are cross-organization, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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?

One short sentence with the auth requirement front-loaded in brackets. No waste, no redundancy. It says exactly what it does and stops.

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 zero-param read-only list tool, the description is minimally adequate. It doesn't say whether the list is paginated, what fields each block entry contains, or whether blocks are mutual. Since there's no output schema, the description should do more to set expectations about the return payload.

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 are zero parameters; baseline is 4. The description correctly states the tool lists the current user's blocks, implying no filtering parameters. Nothing more is needed.

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?

States a specific verb (列出/list) and resource (拉黑的所有用户/blocked users) with scope (当前用户/current user). An agent can distinguish it from siblings like block_user, unblock_user, or list_my_network without opening any schema.

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 says what it does but not when to use it versus alternatives. Sibling tools block_user and unblock_user exist, yet there's no routing guidance. It also doesn't say whether this is for the current user only or if there's a way to list others' blocks.

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