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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and the 'GET /api/v1/crm/donation/{id}' line is consistent with that read-only profile. The description adds the field set returned, but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or not-found behavior; with annotations carrying the safety profile a 3 is fair.

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?

One compact sentence with the identifying key front-loaded, followed by the returned field list and endpoint. Nothing redundant or padded.

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, enumerating the returned fields is the right compensation and it does so, though at a coarse level ('fees, UTM, dedication' are unexpanded). For a single-parameter read this is nearly complete; only error/not-found behavior is absent.

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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter carries no description, so the description must carry the meaning. 'By its Funraise id' does tell the agent the integer is a Funraise donation id, but it adds no format, range, or example detail beyond that.

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 retrieval of a single donation keyed by Funraise id, and the phrase 'One donation by its Funraise id' implicitly separates it from funraise_list_donations. It even enumerates the resources returned (amount, supporter, household, form, fees, UTM), so an agent knows exactly what it gets.

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: fetch a single donation when you have the id, versus the list tool when you don't. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, no mention of the alternative list tool by name, and no guidance on behavior if the id is unknown.

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