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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds useful behavioral context: the data source (ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer) and the post-quantum signed settlement receipt with a verification URL, which informs the agent about the nature of the output and its trust features.

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 four sentences with a logical order: data fields, source, use case, and verification. Each sentence contributes relevant information, though the attestation sentence carries a marketing tone that might be less essential for selecting the tool.

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?

Given no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the return fields (total revenue, expenses, net assets, etc.). It also covers source and verification, making the tool's purpose and output clear. The single-parameter design keeps it complete enough for an agent to invoke appropriately.

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% and the description does not explain the org_name parameter beyond implying it is the nonprofit's name. It fails to clarify expected format (e.g., legal name, EIN). With only one parameter, the agent would benefit from explicit guidance, but none is provided.

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 states exactly what the tool does: 'IRS Form 990 nonprofit financial data' and enumerates specific fields like total revenue, expenses, net assets, program expense ratio, executive compensation, revenue trend, and financial health signal. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on other healthcare benchmarks or drug data.

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?

The description gives explicit context for when to use the tool, stating it is 'Essential for evaluating nonprofit health systems, universities, and foundations.' It does not name alternative tools or exclusions, but the use case is clearly scoped to nonprofit financial evaluation.

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