List document blocks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful domain context about blocks being required for invoice creation, but does not disclose pagination behavior, sort order, or response shape. This is acceptable given the annotations but adds only modest behavioral insight.

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 short sentences with no wasted words. The main action is front-loaded, and the explanatory clause about why block IDs matter is directly relevant rather than filler.

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 simple read-only list tool, the description plus annotations and full schema coverage are largely sufficient. There is no output schema, so an explicit note about return fields would be slightly helpful, but the tool's purpose is clear enough that this is a minor gap.

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 and per_page already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies: the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Lists document blocks') and further clarifies the domain concept as 'invoice number ranges.' It does not explicitly contrast with sibling list tools like billingo_list_documents, but the resource is distinct and clearly named.

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 a clear use context: 'Every document belongs to a block; you need a block id to create an invoice.' This signals when the tool is needed, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions.

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