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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so safety is fully covered. The description adds one useful behavioral nuance — the result is bounded by what 'the creator can see', implying permission-scoped visibility — but says nothing about pagination, shape, or missing-id behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence containing the verb, the scope limitation, the resource, and the lookup key. No filler and nothing redundant.

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 contents need no explanation, and the tool is a trivial one-param read whose annotations fully describe its behavior. The description is adequate for the complexity, with only the visibility-scoping statement doing extra work.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single id parameter is already documented as coming from list_supports/list_pending_supports, so the description adds nothing beyond 'by its id'. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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?

Specific verb + resource + cardinality ('Read everything ... about one supporter, by its id'), which cleanly separates it from the singular-vs-list siblings list_supports and list_pending_supports. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrasing 'by its id' plus the schema note 'From list_supports or list_pending_supports' hints that this is the follow-up lookup after a listing call. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus fetching via a list tool or when not to use it.

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