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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is fully covered without the description. The description adds nothing beyond that or the schema: it does not mention pagination behavior, ordering of results, or what a page contains. For a read-only list tool this is tolerable, but it is pure restatement.

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?

One short sentence with no filler, and the optional-filter scope is stated up front. Nothing is wasted, though the brevity is partly why behavioral and usage detail is thin.

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?

All four parameters are optional and fully documented in the schema, and an output schema exists so return values need no explanation. What remains missing is minor: result ordering and the relationship to the vote and list_downvoters siblings.

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 date parameters already carry format, examples, and pairing guidance. The description merely names the same filters (feature request, date range), adding no semantics such as whether dates apply to vote creation time or inclusive bounds. Baseline 3 applies 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 pairs a specific verb ("List") with a specific resource ("upvoters") and names the filterable dimensions, so the agent can tell it apart from vote or list_feature_requests. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the near-identical sibling list_downvoters, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Saying the filters are optional implies the default is an unfiltered global listing, which is useful implied guidance. However, it never states when to choose this over list_downvoters or vote, nor does it explain how paging interacts with filtering, so usage must be inferred.

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