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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the endpoint 'GET /api/v2/admin/supporters', which usefully signals an admin-scoped read. It does not describe pagination or cursor behavior, though the schema covers those parameters.

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 compact sentences with the resource statement front-loaded and the filter/endpoint details following. Every clause carries information, though the field enumeration ('who supports what, how, importance, subscription') is slightly listy rather than tightly integrated.

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 no output schema, the description usefully sketches the shape of a supporter record (user, suggestion, channel, importance, subscription), and the admin endpoint hint covers auth context. All 9 optional params are fully documented in the schema and safety is handled by annotations, leaving little an agent needs that is missing.

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 one of the 9 parameters is already documented with type, bounds and pattern. The description's 'filter by suggestion, user or forum' merely frames those filters conceptually and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

Clear verb ('List') plus a specific resource ('supporters (voters) of suggestions'), and it enumerates the record fields (who/what, channel, importance, subscription). It distinguishes itself from list_suggestions by describing voter records rather than the suggestions themselves, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling to route against.

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 alternatives, nor any exclusions. 'Filter by suggestion, user or forum' describes capability, not usage context, so the agent must infer the calling conditions from the name alone.

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