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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the concrete GET endpoint and, importantly, discloses that q is mandatory with a server-side default of 'id > 0 order by id asc'. It omits anything about paging behavior or result caps, but the annotations carry the rest.

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 sentences, both doing work: the first names the resource and return fields, the second explains the required filter with an example and default. Slightly dense with nested quoting in the example, but front-loaded and free of filler.

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 compensates by listing the returned fields, and it flags the mandatory q parameter. Pagination quirks are delegated to the schema, which handles them well, so nothing an agent needs to invoke the tool 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%, so the schema already documents q, page and page_size including the 0/1 paging ambiguity. The description restates the q semantics and adds a worked expression example, but contributes little the schema does not already contain.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('List recurring gifts (subscriptions)') and enumerates the fields returned, so an agent knows exactly what it gets back. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling funraise_get_subscription (single record), though the list/get naming makes that inference easy.

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 states that the q filter is required by Funraise and gives its default, which is genuine usage context. However, it never says when to pick this tool over funraise_get_subscription or when to narrow the list with a status filter beyond the single 'Cancelled' example.

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