getGridBlockList

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are paginated and scoped to explicit IPS blocks, but says nothing about ordering, result volume, or whether implicit blocks are excluded from the count.

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?

Three short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The middle sentence partially restates the resource name with extra wording, a small redundancy but not wasteful enough to penalize heavily.

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 read-only paginated list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what is needed to call it correctly. It could note the default-site fallback for siteId, but the schema already documents that.

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%, with page, pageSize, siteId, and searchKey all documented in the schema itself. The description merely echoes pagination and keyword search at a high level, adding no syntax or matching-behavior detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('IPS block list'), and clarifies the result set is limited to entries explicitly blocked by the Intrusion Prevention System. That wording implicitly distinguishes it from allow-list siblings such as getGridAllowList, though no sibling is named outright.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the tool for reviewing blocked IPS entries and that searchKey is optional. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over getGridAllowList or the gateway/EAP rule tools, and no prerequisites are mentioned.

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