Accounts you have blocked

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description itself adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations and schema provide, such as pagination behavior or the shape of returned data.

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 free of fluff, but it is essentially a repeat of the title 'Accounts you have blocked' and therefore does not earn much of its place. It is concise without being substantively useful.

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 tool with no output schema and a minimal description, an agent lacks context about the return shape and about how this endpoint differs from adjacent list tools like get_mutes and get_blocked_domains. The schema and annotations cover parameters and safety, but not the selection context an agent needs when choosing among similar siblings.

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%, and each parameter (limit, max_id, account) already has a meaningful description including defaults, pagination behavior, and account matching semantics. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, so it correctly stays at the baseline of 3.

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 identifies the resource as blocked accounts, which is immediately understandable and separates it from follower, mute, endorsement, and blocked-domain list tools. It is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb+resource statement, but the purpose is not vague. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives no guidance on when to use get_blocks versus related sibling tools such as get_mutes, get_blocked_domains, or get_endorsements. There is no 'use this when...' or 'use X instead for...' context, so an agent must infer the usage entirely from the tool name.

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