list_suppressions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It implies a read-only operation through 'List' and clarifies the content (suppressed addresses plus reasons). However, it does not discuss pagination, the default or maximum page size, ordering, or whether the list is limited to active suppressions. The description is not misleading, but it leaves several behavioral details unstated.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The main action and resource are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence provides a practical trigger for use. Every sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the core purpose, the reason taxonomy, and a concrete diagnostic situation where this tool is the right first choice. It does not describe the exact return shape or pagination behavior, but those are not critical for an agent to make a first correct call.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions the sole parameter, `limit`. The agent must rely entirely on the parameter name and the schema's min/max constraints. The description does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions, though the parameter's purpose is reasonably inferable.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'List addresses we refuse to mail and why,' and enumerates the reason categories (hard_bounce, complaint, unsubscribe, manual). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_suppression, remove_suppression, and suppress_many, which are all mutations rather than read-only lists.

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 guidance: 'Check here first when someone reports not receiving email.' This tells the agent when to use the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5, but the context is clear.

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