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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly states that nothing is stored and no issue changes, explains what the answer contains, and clarifies that an ENVIRONMENT preview counts the candidate environment together with existing rules, so the agent knows this simulates what saving would hide.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the description is dense with actionable detail rather than filler. The workflow sentence is lengthy and slightly repetitive around calling with page=1, but each clause still contributes usage or behavioral information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values and does: it lists matched issues, last-day counts, notifications withheld in the last week, and one page of matching issues ordered most recently seen first. It also covers side effects and special ENVIRONMENT behavior, leaving nothing essential for calling the tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds practical semantics for the page parameter by showing when and how to call it again with page=1, which is useful context beyond the schema's bare 'Page of matching issues to read'.

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 and resource: 'Report what a suppression rule would hide, without adding it.' It immediately distinguishes this preview tool from sibling mutations like create_suppression_rule and update_suppression_rule.

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?

It provides an explicit workflow: call preview_suppression_rule before create_suppression_rule, use page=1 when issuesMatched exceeds the page, and repeat the pattern with update_suppression_rule when moving a rule to another value. The when-to-use context and alternative tools are fully specified.

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