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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses pagination (20 per page) and filter semantics, but doesn't explicitly state read-only nature, response format, or any side effects. For a simple list operation, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 a single concise sentence with a clear front-loaded purpose, followed by a compact list of filters. No wasted words, and structure effectively communicates the tool's behavior.

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?

While the description covers all parameters and pagination, it omits details about default behavior, sorting, or the structure of returned donor sites. Given the lack of an output schema, these omissions leave some ambiguity for an agent.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates well by explaining each parameter: domain_filter as substring, dr_min as Domain Rating threshold, price_max/min as USD per link, and page as pagination. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare 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 clearly states the verb 'Find' and the resource 'marketplace donor sites' with a specific purpose (niche/budget). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_links and list_invoices by naming a distinct resource, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 implies usage for discovering donor sites based on filters, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_links or list_invoices, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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