get_blacklist

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavior. It usefully explains that free tier ignores confidence_minimum and always returns confidence 100 results. However, it omits details on ordering, pagination, or authentication, which are relevant for a read 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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and a key caveat. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (two optional params, no output schema), the description covers the main purpose and the critical tier constraint. Minor gaps like return ordering are not significant enough to warrant a lower score.

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 descriptions fully cover both parameters, but the description adds critical semantics not in the schema: paid vs. free tier behavior regarding confidence_minimum. This goes beyond the structured parameter docs, enhancing understanding.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('most reported IP addresses'), clearly distinguishing this from siblings like check_ip and check_block which target individual IPs. The 'blacklist' aspect is implicit but unambiguous.

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 states the tool fetches top reported IPs and highlights a tier-based limitation, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_reports or check_ip. Usage context is clear but no direct 'when to use' guidance is given.

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