Get Suppression

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds value by disclosing that the result includes the suppression origin (bounce, complaint, or manual), giving the agent expectations about the response content.

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 two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the primary action and then adds the usage rationale, making it highly scannable and 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?

For a simple getter with one documented parameter and a read-only annotation, the description fully covers purpose, usage, and expected return context (suppression status and origin). No output schema is present, but the description gives enough detail for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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% and the parameter is described as 'Suppression ID or email address.' The description reinforces the same semantics ('by ID or email address') but does not add additional formatting or constraint details beyond the schema.

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 action ('Get a suppression list entry'), the resource ('suppression list entry'), and the identifier types ('ID or email address'). It also explains the purpose ('check whether a specific address is suppressed and why'), which distinguishes it from list-suppressions or mutation tools.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to check whether a specific address is suppressed and why,' providing a clear when-to-use scenario. It does not name alternative tools explicitly, but the sibling context (list-suppressions, remove-suppression) makes the differentiation clear enough.

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