Get suppressed events

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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to cover safety. It adds the HTTP method and 'Body fields: none', which is mildly useful but does not describe response behavior, pagination, or error handling. Given the strong annotation coverage, this is adequate but not rich.

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 exceptionally concise, delivering the purpose, HTTP endpoint, body requirement, and a reference link in four short clauses. The action is front-loaded, and every element earns its place without redundancy.

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?

The description plus schema cover the required parameter (event) and annotations cover the safety profile. Missing is any explanation of the response shape or what constitutes a 'suppressed event', but for a read-only list endpoint with well-documented parameters and a reference link, it is reasonably complete. A brief note about the required event parameter would improve it, but the schema already enforces it.

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 fully documents the query parameters (event, sortBy, sortOrder, offset, limit) and their semantics (arrays comma-joined, explicit pagination). The tool description adds no parameter-specific information, so it provides no value beyond the schema. At high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'suppressed events', which is a specific action. However, it does not differentiate it from sibling tools like xmatters_get_events or explain what 'suppressed' means in this context. The API endpoint helps ground the resource, but the description is thin on distinguishing detail.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_events or get_an_event. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context cues. The description merely restates the action and provides the endpoint, leaving tool selection entirely to the agent's inference.

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