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 profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds nothing beyond annotations about result volume, pagination defaults, or ordering behavior, but it does not contradict them either.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is tight, though the brevity leaves little room for the usage and behavioral context the tool would benefit from.

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 7-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is minimal but the schema fully documents every parameter and annotations cover the safety profile. What is missing is any statement of what a suppression record contains or how pagination should be driven, which the description leaves entirely to the schema.

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 coverage is 100% and each of the 7 parameters carries its own description (pagination, sort/order, match semantics, filter conditions). The description's mention of search, type, reason and expiry filters loosely maps to the search and filters parameters but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource (list suppressed addresses) plus the dimensions that can be filtered, so an agent knows this is the read/list counterpart to get-suppression, create-suppression and delete-suppression. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so differentiation relies on the verb alone.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of fetching a single suppression via get-suppression instead of listing, and no stated prerequisites. The agent must infer usage purely from the name and the verb.

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