Địa chỉ ngừng gửi

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a small amount of value by indicating the payload contains both the address and the suppression reason, but says nothing about listing scope, limits, or pagination.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, with the purpose before the usage line. Slightly penalized because the bilingual Vietnamese/English restatement duplicates the same content rather than adding information.

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 simple zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the essentials are present, but a list tool should ideally hint at scope or pagination; that information is absent, leaving the return shape only partially described.

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 tool takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the documented baseline for a no-param tool applies; the description adds no parameter detail because none exists to add.

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?

States a specific verb (view/list) and resource (suppressed addresses plus the suppression reason), so an agent knows what it returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the similarly-named sibling suppression tools (mail_suppression_remove, monapay_list_email_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?

"Use to diagnose suppressed recipients" gives a usage context, which is more than nothing, but there is no when-not guidance, no prerequisites, and no explicit routing among the sibling suppression/removal tools.

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