list_spam_reports

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

Without annotations, the description only discloses that the tool is read-only. It does not mention rate limits, return format size, or whether it affects state. With no annotations, this is insufficient for safe agent invocation.

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, focused sentence. It is concise and front-loaded with the read-only qualifier. Although it could include more detail without becoming verbose, it is efficient.

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?

With 6 optional parameters including pagination and time filters, the description omits these capabilities completely. An agent might not know that filtering is supported, and no output schema exists to supplement expectations.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters, meeting the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states 'list spam report suppressions' with a read-only hint, identifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like list_blocks and list_bounces, but could be more explicit to avoid confusion with similar suppression listers.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_global_suppressions or list_group_suppressions. The description lacks any context on selection criteria or prerequisites.

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