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 underlying endpoint (GET /api/v1/interaction/donor/{donorId}) and the shape of returned fields, which is genuine added value, but it says nothing about pagination, ordering, result limits, or empty-result behavior — meaningful for a read/list tool.

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 short sentence plus the endpoint, with the resource and returned fields front-loaded and zero filler. The terseness costs it a point only because there is room to add routing guidance without bloat.

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?

There is no output schema, so the field enumeration ('subject, description, action, assigned user, dates') usefully describes the payload. However, for a list endpoint with a single scoping parameter, the description omits pagination/ordering behavior and does not distinguish supporter-scoped from user-scoped listing, leaving real gaps.

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%, but there is only a single required integer parameter and the description's 'of a supporter' wording makes clear that supporter_id scopes the query. It adds no guidance on identifier format or where to obtain a valid supporter id, so it neither fully compensates for the coverage gap nor leaves the parameter unintelligible.

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 names a specific resource (the interaction log for one supporter) and enumerates the record types and fields returned (calls, emails, meetings; subject, description, action, assigned user, dates). It effectively distinguishes this from funraise_get_interaction (single record) by implying a list for a donor, though it never explicitly differentiates from funraise_list_user_interactions, which is the closest ambiguous sibling.

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 only implied: an agent can infer it should call this when it needs all interactions tied to a supporter. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of the supporter-scoped vs user-scoped alternative (funraise_list_user_interactions), and no note on when to prefer funraise_get_interaction for a single record.

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