List blocked domains

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose that the response is paginated and Horizon-style, which is useful behavioral context. It says nothing about authentication requirements, rate limits, whether the list is exhaustive or snapshot-based, or the fact that it is a safe read operation (only implied by "List").

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then response shape, then the alternative. Every sentence carries information and nothing is repeated from structured fields.

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-required-parameter read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies purpose, pagination model, and sibling routing, which is close to sufficient. It leaves the caller to infer whether the listing is filtered by any status and what fields each entry returns.

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 description coverage is 100%, so limit, order, cursor, and search are all documented in the schema itself, establishing a baseline of 3. The description's "Paginated Horizon-style response" adds only an indirect hint about cursor semantics and nothing about search or ordering behavior beyond what the schema states.

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 and resource ("List domains reported for fraudulent Stellar-related activity") with the subject matter scoped precisely. It also names the sibling check_blocked_domain, so an agent can distinguish this list-all tool from the single-hostname lookup without opening either 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?

"Prefer check_blocked_domain for a single hostname" gives an explicit alternative and the condition that selects it. It stops short of stating when this tool should not be used at all (e.g., no filtering by status or reporter), but the primary routing decision is covered.

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