List Suppressions

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds context that suppressions are 'due to bounces or complaints,' which is behavioral insight beyond annotations. No other traits (e.g., rate limits, return format) are disclosed.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. Every word is necessary, with no 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?

Given the well-documented schema, annotations, and existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and constraints. It does not explain return values or pagination behavior beyond the schema, but this is acceptable for a list tool with a clear output schema.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (limit and cursor). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already conveys, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 recipients currently suppressed due to bounces or complaints.' It uses a specific verb ('list'), identifies the resource ('suppressions'), and explains the reason for suppression, which separates it from sibling tools like shipmail_remove_suppression or shipmail_list_subscribers.

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 implies usage for viewing suppressions but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., shipmail_remove_suppression). No context about prerequisites or exclusion criteria is provided.

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