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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint), so the burden is lower; the description still adds that results carry suggestion counts and supporter revenue and that the call hits the admin endpoint /api/v2/admin/features, a useful auth-privilege signal. It stops short of rate limits or pagination caveats, but it goes beyond the annotations.

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, no waste: scope first, then filtering, then the underlying endpoint. Information is front-loaded and nothing is redundant.

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?

With 7 optional params all covered by the schema and no output schema, the description usefully discloses the shape of returned data (counts and supporter revenue) and the filter dimensions. Minor gap: no mention of pagination behavior for large result sets, though cursor/per_page are covered in-schema.

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%, so every parameter is already documented in-schema — the baseline of 3 applies. The description only restates the filter axes (text, suggestion, product area) without adding format, combination, or precedence rules 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?

Specific verb (List) plus resource (product features), with a clarifying parenthetical that defines a 'feature' as the roadmap item suggestions link to — which cleanly separates it from uservoice_list_suggestions and the other list tools. The description also names the returned payload scope (suggestion counts, supporter revenue).

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?

It states the three filter axes (text, linked suggestion, product area), which implies when the tool is useful, but there is no explicit 'use this instead of X' routing against siblings like list_suggestions or list_categories, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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