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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the response includes both household and supporter details, which is useful return-shape context, but it says nothing about behavior when a supporter has no household (null vs error) or about pagination/auth.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The parenthetical return-value note is dense and useful; the endpoint path is the only arguably redundant element since it restates the resource.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description should convey the return shape more concretely, especially since ambiguity with funraise_get_household is the main failure risk. It hints at returned fields but leaves the household-vs-membership distinction unresolved.

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 0%, so the schema only tells the agent the parameter is a positive integer named supporter_id. The description partially compensates by embedding it as {supporterId} in the path, confirming it is the supporter's identifier, but it adds no format or source guidance (e.g., where to obtain a supporter id).

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 names a specific resource (household membership) tied to a supporter, and the endpoint path confirms the lookup key. However, it does not distinguish itself from the very similar sibling funraise_get_household, so an agent must guess which of the two to call for household data.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus funraise_get_household or funraise_get_supporter, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. Usage must be inferred entirely from the endpoint path.

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