get_blocklist

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds the useful fact that each entry is attributed to an indexer with a reason, but says nothing about ordering, whether the list is capped at the schema's default, or how 'most blocklisted releases' would be derived.

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 core statement is front-loaded in one sentence and the examples are short. The example block is mildly redundant with the first sentence but does convey intended query shapes, so it earns its place without bloat.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not the description's burden, and annotations cover the safety profile. With 100% parameter coverage and no required params, an agent has everything needed to call it; only the lack of alternatives guidance keeps it short of a 5.

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 both 'limit' and 'service' (including the sonarr/radarr enum and the omit-for-both default) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or scoping detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 the resource (blocklisted releases) and what the result carries (source indexer and reason), which is enough to distinguish it from history, queue, and log tools. It never names an explicit verb like 'list' or 'retrieve', but the resource is specific and 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 two example questions ('What's in the blocklist?', 'Which indexer has the most blocklisted releases?') imply when an agent would reach for this tool. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no pointer to an alternative for adjacent needs such as history or logs, so usage is only implied.

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