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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds genuine value beyond them: it explains that anomalies marked 'expected' are hidden from the detector (the behavior that matters), notes expires_at semantics (null = indefinite), and discloses the MCP limitation on create/delete. Return format and pagination are not addressed.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences with no filler: purpose, key data attribute (expires_at), API mirror, and a limitation note. Front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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?

Comprehensive for a zero-param, read-only list tool: explains the domain model, a notable field, and discloses what is not supported. Without an output schema, a brief note on the shape of returned items would help, but the essence is captured.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly indicates a simple account-scoped list with no filtering inputs, matching the empty 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 (list) and resource (anomaly suppressions) and defines the domain concept precisely: signatures of provider+service or tag_key+tag_value that a human marked expected. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_anomalies, which surfaces anomalies rather than the suppressions that hide them.

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?

Clarifies scope (this account's active suppressions) and the key constraint that creating/deleting a suppression is not available over MCP, which directly tells the agent not to look for mutation tools. Lacks explicit routing to a related sibling for anomaly review, but the domain is narrow enough that context is clear.

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