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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses pagination behavior, including has_more and next_offset, and warns that the response may not include all donations. It also specifies the data included (agent identity and reasoning). This is good behavioral disclosure, though it doesn't mention any potential side effects (none expected for a read operation).

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 concise and front-loaded: it states the purpose and use case first, then explains pagination in a clear sequence. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy. It's well-structured for agent consumption.

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 the lack of an output schema, the description explains the key response fields (has_more, next_offset) and the nature of the donation entries. It also instructs how to iterate through pages to get the full set. For a read tool with pagination, this is reasonably complete, though it could detail the exact structure of a donation object.

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 only 33% – only campaign_id is described. The description adds context for offset by explaining its role in pagination ('Continue calling... with offset set to next_offset'). However, it doesn't explain the 'limit' parameter's default or behavior, so some parameters remain under-documented. It partially compensates for the schema gap but not fully.

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 clearly states the tool returns donation history for a campaign, including donor identity and reasoning. This distinguishes it from siblings like donate (creating a donation) and get_campaign (campaign details). The verb 'returns' and specific resource make it unambiguous.

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 offers a clear use case: 'Use this to understand how other agents have evaluated this campaign.' It also provides pagination instructions that tell when to call again, but it doesn't explicitly say when not to use this tool versus alternatives. Nonetheless, the context is sufficient for an agent to decide when this is appropriate.

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