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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so 'No business data is changed' is largely a restatement of structured data. The line about returning 'the same selected fields as the corresponding list tool' does add useful behavioral context about the response shape that annotations don't cover, but nothing is said about not-found behavior or permissions.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope. Minimal waste; the trailing 'No business data is changed' is the only mildly redundant element given the annotations.

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 with no output schema, the description covers the action, the key, and the shape of the result by reference to the list tool. The main residual gap is error/not-found behavior and whether the returned field set is configurable.

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 description must compensate; it does identify the single parameter as a 'Givecloud ID', which is meaningful disambiguation. It stops short of describing the format (though the schema pattern covers that) or whether the ID is the internal numeric ID vs an external identifier.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read one supporter') and scopes it to a single record via the Givecloud ID, which implicitly distinguishes it from givecloud_list_supporters. It doesn't name the sibling explicitly, but the singular-vs-list contrast is unmistakable.

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?

'Read one supporter by its Givecloud ID' implies the lookup-by-primary-key use case, and the reference to 'the corresponding list tool' hints at the alternative. However, it never states when to prefer this over givecloud_list_supporters or what to do when you only have an email/name rather than an ID.

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