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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only retrieval and usefully notes that affiliation disclosure is included, but it does not describe pagination, behavior for invalid slugs, authentication needs, or the shape of returned donation options.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every element, including the affiliation-disclosure note, contributes to understanding the call.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with no annotations or output schema, the description states the return scope and the affiliation disclosure. However, it omits error handling, empty-result behavior, and any detail about what a donation option contains, leaving meaningful 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'slug' identifies the association and that the call returns all donation options for that association, but it does not explain slug format, source, or case sensitivity.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retourne') and resource ('options de don') and scopes it to an association identified by slug. It does not explicitly differentiate from any sibling tool, but the sibling list contains no direct donation-options alternative.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which alternative to choose. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'pour une association (par slug)', leaving prerequisites and context unstated.

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