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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It adds context that all suppression types are checked early in the pipeline, which is useful, but it does not explicitly state the operation is read-only, mention pagination behavior, or describe the return format. The 'list' verb implies read-only, but more detail would be beneficial.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the behavioral note is concise. Every sentence adds value.

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 list operation with no output schema and straightforward parameters, the description covers the essential purpose and a key behavioral trait (check order). It does not describe the response structure or explicitly state read-only nature, but those are minor gaps given the schema and simple operation.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already explains each parameter (limit, cursor, organization_id). The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 lists organization suppressions, with a specific verb and resource. It also adds scope by enumerating the suppression types (global, organization, SES tenant) and their check order, distinguishing it from create/update suppressions and other list tools.

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 notes that suppressions are checked before quota and queue work, implying a use case for diagnosing send failures, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No mention of sibling tools or exclusions.

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