list_suppressions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's a read-only list operation (implied by 'List'), returns paginated data with specific structure ('{ items[], meta }'), and includes metadata fields ('reason and createdAt'). It also provides a concrete example of parameter usage. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions.

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 efficiently structured with four sentences that each serve distinct purposes: purpose statement, usage guidelines, return format, and parameter example. No wasted words, and the most critical information (what the tool does) comes first.

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 2 parameters and no output schema, the description provides good coverage: purpose, usage scenarios, return format with field details, and a parameter example. The main gap is lack of output schema, but the description compensates reasonably well by describing the return structure. It could benefit from mentioning pagination behavior more explicitly.

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 the schema already fully documents both parameters (page, per_page). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by providing an example ('Example: { per_page: 100 }'), but doesn't explain parameter interactions, default values, or constraints beyond what's in the 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 the specific action ('List suppressed email addresses') and resource ('email addresses'), with explicit scope ('will not receive any emails'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add_suppression' and 'remove_suppression' by focusing on listing rather than modifying.

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 clear usage context ('audit which addresses are blocked, or paginate to find a specific entry'), giving practical scenarios for when to use this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings.

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