get_suppressions

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It explains that 'Suppressed addresses are automatically skipped when sending', which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not mention any rate limits, authentication needs, or whether the operation is read-only, which is implied but not explicit.

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 concise, with only three sentences and an Args section. It front-loads the main purpose and provides parameter details in a structured format without unnecessary words.

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 an output schema exists, return values need not be explained. The description covers the tool's purpose, the effect of suppressions, and parameter usage. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly, though it lacks mention of pagination or sort order, which are minor.

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%, but the description adds meaningful explanations for all three parameters: 'Filter by inbox (optional)', 'Filter by domain (optional)', and 'Max results (default: 50)'. This significantly compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'List suppressed email addresses (bounces, complaints, unsubscribes)', specifying the verb 'list' and the resource 'suppressed email addresses'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on suppression data, which no other sibling tool addresses.

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 provides usage context with 'Use this to audit why certain recipients aren't receiving emails', giving a clear reason to use the tool. While it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, the sibling list shows no direct competitor, so this guidance is sufficient.

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