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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the 'Read-only: never adds, edits or deletes gifts' line is somewhat redundant. However, the disclosure that this is a legacy endpoint, absent from the current API reference, and may error for Tithely-run churches is genuinely useful behavioral context an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before the read-only note and the endpoint caveat. Each sentence carries information, though the read-only clause partly duplicates the annotation.

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 11-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers purpose, filters, and the important deprecation caveat. It does not describe pagination or return shape, but no output schema exists and the safety profile is annotated, so the omissions are minor.

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 each of the 11 parameters is already documented in the schema. The description lists the filterable dimensions (giver/family, amount, method, fund, envelope, batch, form) but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (list) and resource (recorded contributions/gifts) with clear scope (date range) and enumerates the narrowing dimensions. An agent can immediately distinguish this from siblings like breeze_list_funds or breeze_list_form_entries.

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?

Explains when to use it (contributions within a date range, optionally narrowed) and adds a practical warning about the legacy endpoint and Tithely-run churches erroring. It lacks explicit when-not guidance or a named alternative, but the legacy caveat gives real usage context.

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