Meh. Many of the greatest works open by explaining themselves in miniature (to the extent that it's probably a named literary technique). If you let your engagement with a work be circumscribed by what you're told about it beforehand, that seems more like a you problem.
That highly depends on the story. There are some stories which rely on surprising the reader in a delightful way. If that's revealed in the description it'll take away something really important. I've seen that many times. It makes reading the part up to then look very different, and more boring.
In fact I don't like to read anything where it's clear where it's going, it doesn't have to be because it's revealed in the blurb, it can as well be because of the author's writing.
In contrast, for non-fiction a good summary is perfectly fine.
I also would argue that if something is right in the blurb on the cover, it is not a spoiler in any meaningful sense. People have gotten so obsessed with avoiding spoilers these days, to a truly crazy extent. It's one thing to want to be surprised, but people get so neurotic about not wanting to know anything whatsoever.
