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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the read-only nature implicitly (it 'lists' rather than mutates), explains the negated=true semantics for conditions, and mentions that the answer is 'shown to the person as written,' which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it doesn't explicitly state that the tool makes no changes (read-only), which a readOnlyHint annotation would have covered.

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?

The description is single-paragraph but dense with useful details. It opens with the core purpose and then provides examples of usage. It's slightly long for a parameterless tool, but every sentence adds functional value, so it earns a 4.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns and how to interpret it, including edge cases like negated=true. It also covers the workflow context. There is no missing information an agent would need to call it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema's implicit 'no arguments.' The score is based on the baseline of 4 for no parameters, but the description doesn't need to explain anything since there are no params. A 3 is more appropriate because the description focuses on output rather than input, but the output is rich and explained well.

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 states a specific verb (list) and resource (suppression rules), and provides detailed information about what each rule reports (coverage, operator, conditions, expression). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_suppressions and manage_suppression_rule by focusing on the caller's account rules with coverage metrics.

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 explicitly states when to call this tool first ('when asked why an issue is missing from a list or why a card never arrived') and routes to manage_suppression_rule for delete/update/add actions, including a preview-before-create workflow. This is excellent guidance.

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