get_deep_link_blocks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get list' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, or what constitutes a 'blocked deep link'. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool. Every word earns its place.

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 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks parameter details, behavioral context, and sibling differentiation. The output schema may cover return values, but the description doesn't address when or how to use the tool effectively.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It doesn't mention the 'site_url' parameter at all, leaving its purpose and format undocumented. However, with only 1 parameter, the baseline is 4, but the description adds no value beyond the schema, so it scores lower. The schema alone provides the parameter name and type, but no semantic context.

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 'Get list of blocked deep links' clearly states the action (get) and resource (blocked deep links). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_blocked_urls' (general URLs) and 'remove_deep_link_block' (removal action), though it doesn't explicitly contrast them. The purpose is specific but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_blocked_urls' or 'get_active_page_preview_blocks'. The description implies retrieval of deep link blocks but doesn't specify context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Usage is implied from the name and purpose alone.

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