get_torrent_blocker_reports

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive profile, so the bar is lower; the description nevertheless adds genuine behavioral context by disclosing that filter operators are expensive and can degrade database performance. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious operational trait structured fields cannot convey.

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?

Front-loads the resource and the performance warning in one tight sentence, with the endpoint line as a useful trailing cue. The leading line slightly restates the tool name, a minor 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 6-parameter tool with nested objects, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description leaves too much unexplained — no return-shape hint, no pagination note despite size/start, and no semantics for the filter/sort structures. The performance warning helps but is not enough.

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 only 33% across 6 parameters, and the description compensates minimally: it alludes to 'filters' being expensive but never explains filters, sorting, filterModes, or globalFilterMode structure. Since schema coverage is low, the description should carry more of this burden than it does.

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+resource (get torrent blocker reports) that maps directly to the name and the GET endpoint. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling get_torrent_blocker_reports_stats, which an agent must disambiguate on its own.

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 intended usage by noting the filters are 'primarily intended for use by the frontend' and warns they rely on expensive LIKE operators, which is real guidance on when filters should not be used. But it gives no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives routing, e.g. versus the *_stats sibling.

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