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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description's job is lighter. It adds a valuable conditional call constraint not visible in the schema and describes the result contents (donor, amount, employer, city/state, date). It stops short of disclosing result limits or pagination, but the annotated safe-read profile lowers the burden.

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?

Three compact sentences front-load the purpose, pack the filter fields into one clause, and end with the essential precondition. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant restatement of the title.

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 read-only search tool with no output schema, the description covers what is searched, what is returned, common use cases, and the key prerequisite. It does not mention pagination or result limits, but for a simple filtered search this is a minor gap and not a blocker to correct invocation.

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 each parameter already has a description; the baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping parameters into a single filtering narrative and by stating the at-least-one-of relationship between committee_id and contributor_name, which the schema's required array does not express.

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 names a specific verb ('Search'), a specific resource ('itemized individual contributions'), and the data fields returned. It also distinguishes the tool from financial siblings by scoping it to individual donor contributions, so an agent can tell it apart from candidate_financials and committee_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?

It provides explicit PREFER triggers for common query intents ('who donated to <committee>', '<person>'s political donations') and a clear precondition ('Requires at least one of committee_id or contributor_name'). It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the guidance is specific enough for most routing decisions.

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