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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'these addresses will be rejected on send', which reveals the practical impact of the suppression list and implies a read-only operation (via 'View'). It does not describe pagination or output format, but for a simple list tool this is adequate.

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 a single sentence that promptly leads with the verb 'View' and states the resource. It includes only necessary information — the list's purpose and consequence — with no fluff or repetition of the tool name.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description provides sufficient contextual information: what the list contains, that it causes send rejection, and implicitly that it is read-only. This fully equips an agent to understand when and why to use the tool.

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, and the schema is empty. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when there are no parameters, so the description does not need to explain 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'View all addresses on the bounce suppression list' — a specific verb ('View') plus a specific resource (suppression list). It also differentiates from sibling tools like remove_from_suppression and validate_email by focusing on viewing rather than modifying or validating.

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 implies usage context (when you need to see suppressed addresses before sending), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It provides useful context that rejected-on-send behavior, but no direct 'use this instead of X' guidance.

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