list_blocklist

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

The description provides no behavioral details beyond what annotations already declare (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). It does not mention pagination behavior, return format, filtering effects, or any other operational characteristics that an agent would need to anticipate the tool's behavior.

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 concise but under-specified. It is essentially a bare list of parameter names with no explanatory text, which does not constitute effective communication. The structure is straightforward but fails to provide any substantive content beyond the endpoint and parameter identifiers.

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?

This is a 6-parameter read operation, yet the description provides almost no contextual information about how to use it. It does not explain the purpose of the parameters, how pagination and sorting work, or what data will be returned. Even though an output schema exists, the description still needs to clarify the tool's behavior and parameter semantics, which it completely lacks.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate by explaining what each parameter does, but it merely lists parameter names as 'Query parameter' without any meaning. For instance, it does not clarify that 'movie_ids' filters by movie IDs or that 'protocols' restricts by download protocol, leaving the agent without essential semantic information.

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 the tool's purpose as 'Read Blocklist' and includes the HTTP endpoint, which identifies the resource. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'list_blocklist_movie', so it lacks the differentiation that would make it 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_blocklist_movie' or other list endpoints. The description simply states the action and lists parameters without any context about appropriate use cases or selection criteria.

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