Block status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions a POST endpoint, which may suggest a write operation, yet the tool is named 'block_status' implying a read. No details on side effects, rate limits, or authorization beyond Partner-Name.

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 very concise with two short sentences. No unnecessary information. However, it could be slightly expanded to include parameter guidance without losing conciseness.

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 description lacks details about the response format (no output schema), how to use the parameters effectively, and what 'block status' entails. Given the complexity of 5 parameters and no output schema, more information is needed.

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 only 20% (vendorInfo fields have descriptions). The tool description adds no explanation of parameters, such as limit, offset, statuses, or include_pii. The mention of 'Requires Partner-Name' does not correspond to any parameter in the schema.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('restaurant block status'), and includes the API endpoint and a requirement. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like yandex_eats_block_places, which could cause confusion.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as yandex_eats_block_places or yandex_eats_unblock_places. The only prerequisite mentioned is 'Requires Partner-Name', but no context on typical use cases.

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