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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine context beyond them: a 'Part of Premium' gate and the skip semantics of 'anything already settled is left alone', which explains why the operation is idempotent.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, with every clause adding a distinct fact (scope, Premium gate, skip behavior). No filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover safety. The description supplies the Premium requirement, the bank-check precondition, and idempotent skip behavior, leaving only the parameter-format details thin.

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 50% -- the required 'ids' array has no description in the schema. The description partially compensates by implying the ids target 'waiting' supporters and that settled ones are ignored, but it says nothing about the 100-item cap or the identifier format. Baseline 3 fits given schema does half the work.

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), resource (waiting supporters), and scope (several at once), which clearly distinguishes it from the singular approve_support sibling. The bulk nature is unambiguous from the phrasing.

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?

Provides a meaningful precondition -- 'after the creator has checked their bank' -- but never explicitly contrasts with approve_support or states when bulk is preferable to single approval. Usage is implied rather than guided, with no exclusions named.

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