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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, openWorld, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely useful behavior: results are paginated one page at a time, and addresses, payment details, custom fields and groups are deliberately excluded. It also discloses that name/email matching is partial rather than exact. It stops short of stating page size or total-count behavior.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what you get and what is excluded, then the filter semantics. The trailing 'GET /admin/api/v2/supporters' is marginally redundant but cheap.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers returned fields, known omissions, and filter matching behavior – enough to call it correctly. Missing pagination size and what happens with recurring_profile filters are minor gaps.

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 0%, so the description must carry all parameter meaning; it explains that name and email are partial (substring) filters, which is real added value the schema lacks. However, 'page' and the recurring_profile enum (active/suspended/cancelled/expired) receive no explanation at all, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 scope – 'read one page of supporters' – and names the fields returned (name/email, consent status). This implicitly separates it from the singular givecloud_get_supporter, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 page' and the field-omission note imply this is the lightweight browse path and that get_supporter should be used for full records, but the description never says so outright. No guidance on when to prefer list_recurring_profiles or list_contributions over this.

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