get_blacklist_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description correctly takes on the burden of explaining output. It discloses the exact fields returned, including the `listed` array and the monitor identifiers. It doesn't discuss errors or side effects, but 'Get' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, and the output disclosure adds meaningful context beyond the operation name.

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: the first states the purpose, the second lists return values. No wasted words, and information is front-loaded. Every sentence 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?

The tool is simple (2 params, 1 required) and an output schema exists (context signal). The description covers the essential semantic details, including what the `listed` array represents. It doesn't discuss edge cases like invalid identifiers, but given the simplicity and output schema, it is sufficiently complete.

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%: both `identifier` and `date` are fully described with formats and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so it relies entirely on the schema. This meets the baseline for high coverage but does not exceed it.

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?

Description clearly states the action: 'Get the blacklist report for a specific monitor' with a specific resource (blacklist report) and scope (specific monitor). It distinguishes from sibling list tools like list_blacklist_monitors or list_blacklists, which are for collections.

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 phrase 'for a specific monitor' implies this is for retrieving a single monitor's report, as opposed to listing monitors or blacklists. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools when the user wants multiple reports, but given the sibling names, the use case is clear enough.

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