list_suppressions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: results are ordered oldest first, paging is cursor-based, and suppressions cause 'every send' to be skipped — a functional consequence an agent should know.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that packs the resource, its constituents, sort order, and pagination model with zero filler. Every clause 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 read-only list tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description supplies the sort order and pagination model an agent needs to page correctly. Return-value shape is not covered, but with no output schema that is a minor gap.

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 100%, so all three cursor/limit parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes 'cursor pagination' without adding format or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline 3.

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 (List) and resource (suppressed addresses) and immediately disambiguates what a suppression is — bounces, complaints and manual blocks. No sibling tool covers suppressions, so there is no ambiguity to resolve and an agent can act on it directly.

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 the usage context (viewing the send-skipped suppression list) but offers no explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives. Since no sibling performs this function, the omission is low-cost, but it is still only implied rather than stated.

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