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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the returned field set (status, frequency, amount, dates, supporter) and the underlying endpoint, but says nothing about not-found behavior, auth requirements, or rate limits. Useful additions, but not rich behavioral context beyond annotations.

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?

Two compact sentences: the field list first, then the endpoint. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 enumeration of returned fields is exactly the compensation needed for an agent to know what it will get back. Error and edge-case behavior is the only notable omission.

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 0% for the single parameter, so the description carries some burden. 'By id' and the path template /crm/subscription/{id} imply subscription_id is the recurring gift's identifier, but no format, type, or source guidance (e.g., where to obtain the id) is added beyond the schema.

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+resource ('One recurring gift by id') and enumerates the fields returned, which lets an agent separate it from funraise_list_subscriptions at a glance. The REST endpoint reinforces the single-record scope. It never names the list sibling explicitly, so it stops short of 5.

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 phrase 'by id' implies this is the lookup path once a subscription id is known, and the presence of funraise_list_subscriptions in the sibling set makes the division of labor inferable. However, no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite is stated.

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