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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this is a full-text (not exact-match) search and cites the underlying GET endpoint, but says nothing about matching behavior, result ordering, or empty-result handling beyond what the schema shows.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler; the search scope is front-loaded and the routing cue ('start here') follows immediately.

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 fully documented parameters, the description covers what to search, what it covers, and why to reach for it first. With no output schema present it could say slightly more about what comes back (e.g., constituent summaries with Id), though 'find a donor's Id' implies the key return value.

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 100%, so skip, take, type, and search are all fully documented in the schema. The description's mention of name/email and the three record types restates rather than extends that, which is the expected baseline of 3.

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?

States a specific verb (full-text search) and resource (constituents) with explicit scope: individuals, organizations, and households, plus the searchable fields (name, email). An agent can distinguish this from bloomerang_list_constituents (enumeration) and bloomerang_get_constituent (single-record lookup) without opening the 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?

"Start here to find a donor's Id" gives a clear entry-point cue for the common workflow. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as bloomerang_list_constituents, so the when-not-to-use case is left to inference.

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