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

With no annotations provided, the description fully covers pagination behavior, incomplete results, and how to scan all results using has_more and next_offset. It does not mention sorting or limits, but overall gives sufficient behavioral insight for a read tool.

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, front-loaded with purpose, then usage guidance, then pagination details. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters and no output schema. The description covers purpose, usage, behavior, parameter usage, and outlines the response structure (agent identity, reasoning, pagination fields). It lacks info on default limits or ordering, but overall is sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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?

The schema has 0% coverage, but the description explains that campaign_id is required and describes how limit and offset are used for pagination (including referencing next_offset). It adds meaning beyond the schema, though limit's default or maximum is not specified.

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 that it returns donation history for a specific campaign, including agent identities and reasoning. This distinctively separates it from sibling tools like donate (write) and get_campaign (campaign metadata).

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 explicitly says 'Use this to understand how other agents have evaluated this campaign,' providing a clear usage context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or contrast with alternative tools like search_campaigns.

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