check_exclusion

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return format ({blocked, ruleId?, reason?}) and the filtering of past-only rules. It does not detail permissions, error handling, or side effects, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 sentences with no waste: first sentence gives version, action, resource; second gives return shape and a key behavioral note. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 no output schema, the description includes the return structure. It covers the main behavior (checking forward-blocking rules, skipping past-only). Minor gaps like error conditions could be added, but it is sufficient for a straightforward check tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add additional parameter details beyond the schema's own descriptions ('Content to test', 'Optional entityType'), but the context of 'forward-blocking rule' and past-only rules provides some extra meaning, keeping the score at 3.

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 clearly states the action 'Check whether content would be blocked', specifies the resource ('any active forward-blocking rule'), and distinguishes from siblings like add_exclusion_rule (adds rules) and list_exclusion_rules (lists rules). The return shape is also given.

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 implies usage when wanting to test content against forward-blocking rules and notes that past-only rules are skipped. It provides context but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, though the sibling tools make this clear.

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