x_api_get_users_blocking

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

With no annotations, the description provides extensive behavioral context: it declares 'Risk: read-only', lists required OAuth scopes and token types, explains environment-selection behavior for scopeTenantId/scopeUserId/scopeAccountId and credentialKey, describes the expected response shape, common failure conditions, and safety warnings. This far exceeds the minimal expectation and helps the agent understand side effects, auth requirements, and failure modes.

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 well organized with labeled sections, but it is longer than necessary. The opening 'Get blocking' and 'Use when: Get blocking' are redundant, and some sections could be tightened. Despite this, most sentences convey useful information, so it is not overly verbose, but it does not achieve the zero-waste conciseness of top-tier examples.

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?

The description provides strong operational details: permissions, response shape, failure conditions, and safety warnings, which is valuable given no output schema and no annotations. However, it lacks a precise statement of what the tool actually returns (e.g., 'a list of users blocked by the authenticated user'), and it fails to explain several parameters, leaving gaps in an agent's ability to fully understand constraints and usage. It is adequate but not complete.

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?

The 'Parameter formats and constraints' section adds meaning for id (path, required), max_results (query, integer), and pagination_token (query), which is useful but covers only 3 of 9 parameters. The environment-selection behavior partly explains scopeUserId, scopeAccountId, and credentialKey, but authorizationKey and preferredAuthType remain unexplained. Given the 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates but leaves several parameters opaque.

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 opens with 'Get blocking.' which merely restates the tool name and provides no details about what is being blocked, by whom, or in what context. It does not articulate a clear verb+resource+scope (e.g., 'List users blocked by a specified user ID') and fails to distinguish from sibling tools like x_api_get_users_muting.

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 'Use when:' section is empty of actual guidance, repeating 'Get blocking' without context. The 'Do not use when:' section gives generic advice to prefer schema discovery or query suggestion for exploration, but it does not offer positive use cases or differentiate from similar user-list tools such as followers, muting, or following. This is insufficient for tool selection.

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