list_group_suppressions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly marks the tool as 'Read-only', disclosing its non-destructive nature, which is positive. However, it lacks details about pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or behavior with time range parameters.

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 a single sentence with no superfluous words. It front-loads the key behavioral trait ('Read-only') and efficiently communicates the core action and target resource.

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 the low complexity (3 parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is adequate but lacks details about the response format and how the time range parameters filter results. Providing such info would improve completeness without significant overhead.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, such as clarifying the purpose of 'start_time' and 'end_time' in the context of suppression lists.

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 the tool's purpose: to list suppressed email addresses within a specific suppression group, prefixed with 'Read-only' to indicate non-modifying behavior. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_global_suppressions' and 'add_group_suppressions'.

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 usage when you need to see suppressed emails for a given group, but it does not explicitly describe when to use this tool versus 'list_global_suppressions' or other alternatives. No exclusions or context about when not to use it are provided.

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