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

Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive, closed-world safety profile, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: paging contract (has_more / next_page_offset / page_offset), a hard 5,000-row paging cap with the `paging_limit_reached` flag and the instruction to narrow rather than page further. It also flags that organization-authored text appears in `untrusted_fields` and must be treated as data, not instructions.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then searchable dimensions, then chaining, paging, and safety guidance, closing with four compact examples. Despite covering eight parameters plus paging and a prompt-injection caveat, no sentence is redundant or restates the schema verbatim.

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 an eight-input, zero-required-parameter search tool with an output schema present, the description supplies everything an agent needs: eligibility constraint, filtering dimensions, sibling disambiguation, pagination lifecycle, the 5,000-row ceiling, untrusted-content handling, and the follow-up call. Return-value detail is rightly omitted since the output schema covers it.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema: `topic` is matched against keywords and program names on the extracted website profile (the schema only says 'what the organization works on'), and `org_roles` values are attributed to the organization's own website. It also explains the `org_id` -> get_organization_profile handoff, which the schema does not.

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 opening states a concrete verb and resource ('Find nonprofits, NGOs and social enterprises in every country Kindora holds') and enumerates the underlying registries (IRS, CRA, Charity Commission, ACNC, Kenya NGO board, MIT Solve), which pins down the corpus precisely. It also names the sibling it is not (search_nonprofits) for US IRS data, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use is stated ('For funders sourcing grantees outside a name list'), the alternative for US grant-ranked searching is named with its differentiator ('search_nonprofits goes deeper on IRS data'), and there is a stated minimum constraint ('Give at least a name, a topic, a role, or non-US countries'). Four worked examples cover the main invocation shapes including exclude_countries.

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