list_card_blockers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of pagination behavior, auth requirements, or what a 'blocker' record contains, despite the schema exposing cursor/page-fingerprint machinery.

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?

A single six-word sentence is certainly concise and has no filler, but here brevity reflects under-specification rather than discipline. There is nothing to front-load because almost no information is present.

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?

With 8 parameters, nested objects, and a paginated cursor model, this description is far too thin. An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but the agent still gets no help on required inputs, pagination continuation, or the summary/full detail tradeoff.

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 only 38% across 8 parameters, so the description is expected to compensate and does not. It hints that a card is targeted but says nothing about limit, detail (summary vs full), or the text_offsets/section_offsets/previous_page continuation contract.

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 sentence names a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('blockers of the card'), so the purpose is intelligible. However, it is essentially a restatement of the tool name list_card_blockers and does nothing to distinguish this from siblings such as get_card, list_card_tags, or list_card_members.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this instead of get_card or the other list_card_* siblings, and no stated prerequisites (e.g., that a card_id or url is needed). Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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