list_blocklist

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'Read' and 'GET', which merely restate the annotations, and it repeats parameter names already present in the schema. No additional behavioral traits are disclosed, such as pagination behavior, default sort order, or response format. The description contributes no value beyond the annotations.

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 front-loaded with 'Read Blocklist', and the parameter list is organized. However, listing all six parameters with only 'Query parameter' duplicates the schema in a less informative way, which slightly reduces the value of each sentence. It earns a mediocre 3 for being concise but not maximally purposeful.

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 six parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is incomplete. It omits any explanation of what each filter does, how to combine them, or what the response contains (though an output schema exists). There is no mention of when to apply this tool in a workflow. The presence of an output schema lightens the return-value burden, but the missing parameter semantics and usage guidance leave an agent underprepared to use this tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only lists each parameter with the label 'Query parameter', which adds no semantic meaning. It does not explain the purpose of page, page_size, sort_key, sort_direction, series_ids, or protocols, nor does it specify formats or allowed values (e.g., what sort_key refers to, how protocols are encoded). This leaves an agent guessing about how to correctly set these parameters.

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 opens with 'Read Blocklist', which clearly states a verb ('Read') and a resource ('Blocklist'), and the endpoint GET /api/v3/blocklist confirms the exact operation. This is sufficiently specific to distinguish it from most sibling tools, though it does not explicitly name alternative list tools or contrast its scope. A minor lack of explicit differentiation keeps it from 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is the read-only counterpart to delete_blocklist_* tools, nor does it suggest scenarios (e.g., 'use to fetch all blocked items'). With many list_* siblings, the lack of usage direction leaves an agent to infer context from the tool name alone.

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