get_suppressions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It explains that suppressed addresses are automatically skipped during sending and that the tool lists them, which conveys read-only behavior and domain context. It doesn't mention rate limits or pagination beyond the limit parameter, but the output schema covers return structure.

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 compact: a one-line purpose, a one-line usage note, and a clear Args list. Every sentence serves a purpose and the structure makes parameters easy to scan.

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 an output schema and three optional parameters, the description covers purpose, usage, and parameters well. The existence of an output schema means return value details are already available. There are no missing critical details.

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?

The description includes an Args section that explains each parameter (inbox_id, domain_id, limit) and their optional/default nature, while the schema only provides types and defaults. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage and adds meaningful context.

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 opens with 'List suppressed email addresses' – a specific verb and resource – and immediately clarifies the types (bounces, complaints, unsubscribes). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like list_sms_suppressions and get_delivery_events.

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 phrase 'Use this to audit why certain recipients aren't receiving emails' provides a clear context for when to invoke the tool. It doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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