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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world write; the description adds genuinely new context: it only stores the financial record, charges nothing, sends nothing, and the amount surfaces in reports and giving history. That is real side-effect disclosure beyond the hints, though it does not mention permissions or what the call returns.

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 'WRITE:' marker, then scope, then the duplicate-check. Every sentence contributes and nothing is restated.

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 9-parameter mutation with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers scope, side effects, and the duplicate-avoidance step. Minor gaps remain around permission requirements and what identifier is returned, but nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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% with 9 well-documented parameters, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds no format, default, or constraint detail beyond it, so the baseline of 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 ('records ONE contribution') plus a parenthetical defining what counts as a contribution, and names the sibling (civicrm_list_contributions) it is not. An agent can separate it from the list tool without opening either 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?

Gives a concrete pre-call check ('Check civicrm_list_contributions first to avoid a duplicate') and clarifies what the tool does not do (no card charge, no receipt), which frames when it applies. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use conditions or other alternatives, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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