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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered, but the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: this is a legacy endpoint no longer in the current API reference, and churches running giving through Tithely may receive an error. That deprecation/failure-mode disclosure is exactly the kind of trait annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loads purpose and returned fields, then the legacy caveat, in a compact span. Including the raw 'Breeze: GET /api/funds/list' is slightly redundant for an agent but is harmless metadata that closes the description.

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?

With no output schema, the description helpfully enumerates the returned fields and discloses the legacy error risk, which is adequate for a simple one-parameter read tool. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, missing only explicit sibling routing.

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 is already fully documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description's 'optionally with the total given to each' merely restates the schema's include_totals meaning without adding syntax or format detail.

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 clear verb and resource ('List giving funds') and even enumerates the returned fields (id, name, tax_deductible, is_default), so an agent knows exactly what surface it gets. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like breeze_list_contributions, but the 'funds' resource is distinctive enough to differentiate.

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?

The description explains the include_totals option ('optionally with the total given to each'), which implies when to use it, but gives no explicit when/when-not guidance against alternatives such as breeze_list_contributions. Usage is only implied.

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