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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely new constraint the annotations do not carry: the requirement for a sub-account API key, plus the explicit negative scope (no add/remove). It does not describe result shape or pagination limits, but the schema handles those.

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, with the access class and read-only nature front-loaded before the scope clause. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 6-parameter read tool with no output schema and solid annotation coverage, this covers access, scope, and non-mutation adequately. The remaining gap is the meaning of the `type` filter and what `search` matches, which an agent would need to filter confidently.

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 67%, with from/to/limit/offset documented in-schema; the description only adds that the range governs the query and that pagination applies. The `type` enum values and the target of `search` (which has no schema description at all) are left unexplained in both places, so the description does not compensate for the gap.

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 ('Inspect') and resource ('suppressions and documented reasons') plus scope (date range, pagination), which is unambiguous. None of the siblings read suppressions, so the tool is trivially distinguishable from every listed alternative.

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?

'READ (sub-account key)' signals the credential and operation class needed, and 'Does not add or remove suppressions' tells the agent this is not the route for mutation. No sibling alternative is named, but no sibling overlaps the resource, so there is nothing to route away from.

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