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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior itself. It only says 'List blocked contacts/domains' and gives a v2 path note. It does not describe the response format, pagination behavior, whether a limit is applied by default, or any side effects. The endpoint note is mildly useful but not a substitute for behavioral disclosure.

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 short and front-loaded with the action and resource. The v2 path note is an extra but brief detail, and there is no unnecessary prose. It earns a high score for conciseness, even though it sacrifices some informative depth.

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?

The tool is simple, but the absence of an output schema and any description of the response contents leaves an agent without important runtime context. The path note helps but does not cover pagination, what fields are returned, or how this relates to add_to_blocklist and remove_from_blocklist. The description is below the minimum viable level for full standalone 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 contains one parameter, limit, with 0% description coverage. The description does not mention the limit parameter or explain its meaning, so it adds no semantic value beyond the raw schema. For a tool with such low schema coverage, the description needed to compensate and did not.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List blocked contacts/domains.' It clearly identifies a read/list operation, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like add_to_blocklist or remove_from_blocklist. The purpose is still unambiguous enough to distinguish it from the mutating blocklist tools.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state typical use cases, mention when it should not be used, or reference the sibling add/remove tools. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and the one-line description.

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