list_email_security_block_senders

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it offers none. There is no mention of pagination or result limits (typical for list operations), ordering, required permissions, or what the response looks like. Only the 'List' verb implicitly suggests a read-only operation.

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 six words long, so it is undeniably short, but this is under-specification rather than earned conciseness. Every word merely restates the tool name and contributes zero additional intent or context.

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 — one parameter, fully covered by the schema — but with no output schema and no annotations, the description should compensate by hinting at return structure, pagination, or scope of results. It does none of this, so an agent is left guessing what a successful invocation actually yields.

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% — the single required account_id parameter is documented as 'The account ID' in the schema itself. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies; the schema fully handles parameter meaning.

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 'List email security blocked senders' is a near-word-for-word restatement of the tool name with the snake_case converted to spaces. It is clear about the general operation, but it adds no information beyond what the identifier itself already conveys, fitting the tautology criterion.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_email_security_block_sender (which fetches a single sender) or the counterpart list_email_security_allow_policies, leaving the agent to infer scope purely from the name.

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