opn_list_dnsbl

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only describes the return format but does not mention behavioral aspects such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, or performance implications. The tool is likely safe, but this is not disclosed.

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 three sentences, each adding value: purpose, usage scenario, alternative tool, and return structure. It is front-loaded with the key idea and contains no redundant information.

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?

For a listing tool with two optional parameters, the description covers the core purpose, usage context, and return structure. It lacks parameter details but otherwise provides sufficient context for an AI agent to use the tool correctly.

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 two parameters (search, limit) with defaults but no descriptions. The description does not explain their meaning or usage, leaving a gap especially given 0% schema description coverage. No per-parameter guidance is provided.

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 it lists DNSBL configurations with providers and status. It distinguishes from the sibling tool opn_get_dnsbl by noting that the latter provides full details, making the purpose and differentiation explicit.

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 specifies when to use this tool (to see configured blocklists, active providers, allowlist/blocklist entries) and provides an alternative (opn_get_dnsbl for full details). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the context is clear enough.

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