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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description earns credit for disclosing a hard behavioral constraint annotations cannot express: a full_access API key is required, which materially affects whether an agent can call this at all.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the access constraint. The trailing API metadata (operationId, endpoint, group name) is mildly noisy but compact and does not bury the key 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?

For a simple read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the essentials (operation, auth) are present. However, it gives no indication of what a suppression record contains or what ordering the list follows, leaving the agent to infer return shape entirely.

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 all three parameters (after, limit, before) including the mutual-exclusion rule are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is the expected baseline given full schema coverage.

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 is essentially the name restated: 'List suppressions' names a verb and a specific resource, so an agent knows the object domain, but there is no differentiation from siblings like create_suppression, delete_suppression, or the list_* family. It is minimum viable rather than informative.

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 the authentication prerequisite ('Requires a `full_access` API key'). Nothing says when to use this versus get/list alternatives or what problem it solves, and there are no exclusions or preconditions about pagination or filtering strategy.

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