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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and idempotency profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond the schema's key options — no not-found behavior, no return shape — which is acceptable given the annotation coverage but not additive.

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?

A single sentence with zero waste, front-loading verb, resource, and accepted key types. Nothing superfluous.

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 one-parameter, non-destructive read tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, this is nearly complete. Minor residual gaps are the response shape and whether an invalid/unknown identifier errors or returns empty; with no output schema, a brief note would have helped.

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 100% and the single parameter's description already documents both the sup_xxx ID format and the email-address alternative. The description merely echoes the same 'ID or email address' duality, adding no format or validation detail beyond 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?

States a specific verb (Retrieve) and resource (a suppression) plus the lookup keys (ID or email address). It is distinguishable from list-suppressions and create/update/delete-suppression by its singular retrieval semantics, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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 'by ID or email address' phrasing implies a single-record lookup rather than a filtered list, which points an agent away from list-suppressions. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or mention of what to do if the record is not found.

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