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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond them: the listed data is unverified self-reported claims ('what people say they sent, not what has been received') because Kulhad cannot see bank accounts. That trust caveat materially affects how an agent should interpret and relay results.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then the trust caveat and workflow. Each sentence contributes, though the third sentence's workflow detail is slightly more than a list tool strictly needs; no filler or redundancy is present.

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 not be described, and annotations carry the safety profile. Given a single trivial parameter, the description covers the one thing structured data cannot: what the listed records actually mean and the review step that follows. Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret this tool is missing.

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?

There is a single parameter (limit) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no syntax, default, or format detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb (List) and resource (supporters) with a precise state filter: those who marked payment as sent and await creator approval. This distinguishes it cleanly from list_supports (all supports) without needing to name the sibling, since the 'waiting for approval' qualifier is unambiguous.

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?

It establishes the workflow context: the creator reviews this list, checks their bank app for the amount and four-character code, then approves. That implicitly points to approve_support as the follow-up action. It stops short of an explicit when-to-use-this-vs-list_supports statement or exclusions, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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