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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered and the bar is lower. The description still adds behavior the annotations don't: results come back 'newest first' and are filterable by status or date range. It omits pagination behavior and whether hidden/rejected records appear by default.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the important scoping detail ('newest first') is front-loaded before the tool-selection guidance. Every clause earns its place.

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 the description covers purpose, filters and the sibling boundary. For a 5-parameter, 0-required paging tool, the only real gap is pagination behavior (default limit of 25, max 100), which an agent must infer from the schema defaults.

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 60%, with 'to', 'from' and 'status' (including the 'claimed' gloss) already documented in the schema. The description only re-states that these filters exist and says nothing about 'page' or 'limit', the two undocumented parameters, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('List supporters'), plus two distinguishing traits: default ordering ('newest first') and supported filters ('by status or by date'). This lets an agent separate it from list_pending_supports without reading either schema.

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 gives explicit positive contexts ('history', 'questions about a particular period') and names the alternative tool for a different intent ('use list_pending_supports for the approval queue'). The routing decision is fully specified.

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