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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that results are paginated and the REST path backing the call; it says nothing about page size defaults, ordering defaults, or what an empty result means.

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 fragments, front-loaded with the resource and scope, with zero filler. The telegraphic style costs a little readability but keeps the definition tight.

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 5-parameter paginated list tool with no output schema, the description is minimal but workable since annotations carry safety and the schema carries pagination details. It is still thin on what an address record contains and on the paging ambiguity the schema itself flags.

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 80%, with page, sort, order, and page_size all documented in the schema; only the required supporter_id lacks a description there. The description partially compensates by showing supporterId in the endpoint path, but adds no further meaning about sortable fields or pagination semantics beyond the schema.

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 resource (addresses of a supporter) plus the underlying endpoint, making it clear this is a list operation scoped to one supporter. It is distinguishable from funraise_get_address and funraise_list_household_addresses by the supporter scope, though it never explicitly names those siblings.

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 guidance on when to use this versus funraise_get_address (single address) or funraise_list_household_addresses, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The agent must infer the selection criteria from the tool name alone.

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