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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, yet the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: the operation is irreversible, invalid/non-waiting ids are silently skipped and counted rather than erroring, and no reply is set. That partial-success semantics is exactly what an agent needs and is not derivable from the annotations.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its limit, then preconditions, irreversibility, edge-case handling, and sibling equivalence. No filler and every sentence carries distinct 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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained. The description covers batch limit, Premium gating, irreversibility, skip behavior for bad ids, and equivalence to approve_support — everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 only 50% (the 'hidden' flag is documented in-schema, 'ids' is not described). The description compensates by explaining that the ids array is a set of waiting supporters (implying the 1..100 bound) and that non-waiting, foreign, or missing ids are skipped and counted — a meaningful semantic beyond the raw integer array definition.

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 (Approve), a bounded scope (up to 100 waiting supporters at once), and the prerequisite condition (after the creator has checked their bank). It is easily distinguished from the singular sibling approve_support and from bulk_reject_supports.

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?

Gives a clear precondition (creator has checked their bank) and references approve_support as the equivalent single-item operation, plus a Premium gating note. It does not explicitly say when to prefer the single-item tool over this batch tool, but the context is unambiguous.

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