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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'PRO' and describes the matching criteria; it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what access_token requirements exist, whether results are paginated or rate-limited, or what the response contains.

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 compact and front-loaded, with no redundant sentences. The unexplained 'PRO.' tag is slightly distracting and the core purpose is expressed as a noun phrase rather than an explicit action, but overall it is efficiently structured.

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 four-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits important context: authentication/token behavior, pagination, return fields, result limits, and how this tool relates to nonprofit_check or financials. It gives enough to infer the basic search but not enough for an agent to invoke it with full confidence.

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 only 25%, so the description should compensate for undocumented parameters. It adds useful meaning for keyword and state filtering with concrete keyword examples, but it does not explain the page parameter, and access_token is described only in the schema.

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 identifies a specific resource (nonprofits) and filters (keyword, state) with examples such as 'food bank', 'hospital', and 'school'. It is clear enough to understand the core search purpose, but it phrases the action as a noun phrase rather than an explicit list/search verb and does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like nonprofit_check or financials.

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 names target users (fundraising consultants, SaaS, and grant writers), which implies a prospecting use case for this tool. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance, no prerequisites, and no comparison to the sibling tools nonprofit_check or financials.

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