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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this ('this server never adds, edits or deletes gifts') while adding non-obvious behavior: the endpoint is legacy and may fail for certain churches. It does not describe pagination or result size, which matters for a listing tool.

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 action and scope, then safety, then the operational caveat. Dense but each sentence carries distinct information; slightly packed given the filter list.

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?

Given 11 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the filtering surface, read-only guarantee, and legacy/Tithely failure mode well. It omits return shape and pagination behavior, which leaves a gap for a listing tool of this breadth.

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 all 11 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description enumerates the same filter categories but adds no syntax or interaction detail beyond what the schema states (e.g., that include_family only applies with person_id). 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), resource (recorded contributions/gifts), and scope (within a date range), plus an inline definition of what counts as a contribution. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like breeze_list_funds or breeze_list_form_entries without opening any 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?

Explains the narrowing dimensions (giver/family, amount, method, fund, envelope, batch, form) and adds a meaningful when-not-to-use caveat: legacy endpoint removed from the current API reference, likely erroring for Tithely-based churches. No explicit sibling alternative is named (e.g., breeze_list_funds for fund ids), so it stops short of a 5.

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