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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the ProPublica source, cryptographic attestation, verification URL, and a $0.10 USDC per-call cost. No contradiction exists between the description and 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?

The description is reasonably concise and front-loaded with substantive data details. The verification URL and pricing are additional but relevant to invocation decision-making. Minor redundancy exists in the marketing tone, but no sentence is wasted.

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 single-parameter read-only tool without an output schema, the description covers the key expected metrics, data source, cost, and verification mechanism. It is sufficient for an agent to understand what it will receive and what trade-offs apply, though it could mention name-matching ambiguity on ProPublica.

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%, and the description does not mention org_name, the sole parameter, or clarify how to format/identify the organization. Although the tool name and schema make the parameter inferable, the description adds no semantics beyond 'nonprofit' and therefore fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 a specific verb ('get'), a concrete resource ('IRS Form 990 nonprofit financial data'), and enumerates the exact outputs: revenue, expenses, net assets, program expense ratio, executive compensation, revenue trend, and financial health signal. It additionally names the data source and target use cases, making it clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_irs_industry_tax_statistics.

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 clear usage context: 'Essential for evaluating nonprofit health systems, universities, and foundations.' It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the use-case framing is specific enough to guide an agent toward this tool for nonprofit Form 990 financial analysis.

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