get_blocked_urls

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but fails to describe key traits: whether this requires specific permissions, if it returns paginated results, what the output format is, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and doesn't compensate for the lack of annotations.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loaded with the core action.

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 low complexity (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and incomplete parameter guidance, it lacks context on permissions, behavior, and usage scenarios. The output schema may cover return values, but the description doesn't provide enough operational context for safe and effective use.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic context. The description mentions 'for a site', which implies the 'site_url' parameter is required, adding some meaning beyond the schema. However, it doesn't specify the format or constraints for 'site_url', leaving gaps in parameter 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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'list of blocked URLs for a site', which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_blocked_url' and 'remove_blocked_url' by focusing on retrieval rather than modification. However, it doesn't explicitly mention that it's a read-only operation, which would make it fully distinct.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_fetched_urls' or 'get_url_info', nor does it mention prerequisites such as site verification or authentication requirements. It lacks explicit context for usage, leaving the agent to infer based on the tool name alone.

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