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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it is a legacy endpoint no longer in Breeze's current API reference, and churches whose giving runs through Tithely may get an error. That warning meaningfully affects whether an agent should call or fall back.

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-loaded with the resource and returned fields, then the optional-totals note, then the legacy warning and endpoint reference. Every sentence carries information, though it is slightly dense in the final sentence.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully names the returned fields, and the single parameter is fully covered by the schema. Combined with the readOnly annotation and the legacy risk note, an agent has enough to invoke this correctly; only the relationship to sibling list tools is left implicit.

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 the single parameter include_totals is already fully documented in the schema. The description's phrase 'optionally with the total given to each' mirrors that semantics without adding syntax or format detail, so the 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 and resource ('List giving funds') and even enumerates the fields returned (id, name, tax_deductible, is_default), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly differentiate from adjacent list tools like breeze_list_contributions, which is the only gap.

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?

Usage is implied through 'optionally with the total given to each,' which tells the agent when to set include_totals, and the legacy/Tithely error caveat is genuinely useful pre-call context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus sibling tools such as breeze_list_contributions, so the guidance is only partially covered.

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