check_suppression

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action but does not disclose return format, side effects, or error behavior. It adds the deliverability/consent context, which is helpful, but for a read-only check the transparency is minimally 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a rationale. Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description explains purpose and usage context well. However, it doesn't state the return type (e.g., boolean) which would be useful for an agent, and it doesn't mention any limitations. Still, it's nearly complete for its simplicity.

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 has one parameter 'email' with no description (0% coverage). The description says 'address' but not explicitly 'email address', though context implies it. It doesn't add format, constraints, or meaning beyond the schema. For a single obvious parameter, this is adequate but not compensating fully.

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 uses a specific verb 'Check' and resource 'suppression list', clearly stating the tool's function. It distinguishes from siblings like list_suppressions (which lists all entries) and add/remove_suppression (mutations).

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 gives explicit context: 'Run this before drafting mail to someone' and explains the consequence of ignoring it (deliverability harm, consent violation). It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the use case is well-defined.

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