panelica_spam_get_v1_spam_blacklist

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only.' It adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the HTTP method (GET), the category (Spam), and the required scope (email:read). This is adequate for a no-parameter read-only operation.

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 extremely compact: a one-line purpose statement followed by four short metadata lines. Every line adds value, and no words are wasted.

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 simple no-parameter GET list operation, the description covers the endpoint, category, required scope, and read-only nature. There is no output schema, so a brief note about the response shape would have been a small enhancement, but the action is clear enough that an agent can invoke it correctly without further detail.

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 tool has zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. With 0 params, the baseline is 4, and the description appropriately does not introduce nonexistent parameters.

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 phrase 'List spam blacklist' is a specific verb+resource statement, and the HTTP path '/v1/spam/blacklist' makes the target unambiguous. The resource name clearly differentiates it from the sibling tool panelica_spam_get_v1_spam_whitelist without needing to open schemas.

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 provides clear context: it is a read-only GET endpoint in the Spam category requiring the email:read scope. While it does not explicitly say 'use this instead of the whitelist tool,' the resource name and endpoint leave little room for confusion. It lacks explicit exclusion guidance, but context is sufficient for a simple list tool.

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