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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), but the description goes further by disclosing the auth requirement and, crucially, the semantics of returned fields: null signal means all signals, null operation means whole service, maxSeverity caps severity, null expiresAt means never expires. That is meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations, though nothing is said about pagination or result size limits.

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 paragraphs, front-loaded with the purpose followed by a compact field-semantics key. Every sentence carries information, though the second paragraph is dense enough that it could be bulleted for faster scanning.

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?

With no output schema, the description does well to explain the shape and meaning of returned entries, and the auth note is helpful. However, it never resolves the overlap with list_suppression_rules, list_ignore_rules, and suppress_signal/unsuppress_signal, which is the main thing an agent needs to route correctly in this crowded family.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline is 4. The schema is an empty object and the description correctly does not invent parameter details.

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 with scope ('List the calling tenant's active alert suppressions'), so an agent knows exactly what is returned. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the very similar siblings list_suppression_rules, list_ignore_rules, or suppress_signal/unsuppress_signal, leaving the 'suppression vs suppression rule' boundary unstated.

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 only guidance is 'READ: available to any authenticated user', which is a permission note rather than a when-to-use statement. There is no indication of when to prefer this over list_suppression_rules, nor any mention of the mutation siblings that create or remove suppressions.

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