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

readOnlyHint already covers the safety profile, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond it: results are limited to *active* constituents, at least one term is mandatory, and exact date formats (YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:SSZ vs YYYY-MM-DD) are specified. It stops short of describing return shape or result caps.

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?

Front-loaded: purpose and the common-case input pattern come first, then the reference list. The term enumeration is a dense run-on but every token is a usable field/value spec, so it earns its space despite packing a lot into one paragraph.

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 description should carry the burden; it covers input semantics thoroughly and the offset parameter hints at paging via 'the previous page's next_item'. It never states what a result object contains, which is the one material gap for an agent assembling a query.

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 100%, so 3 is the baseline, but the description goes well past the schema by enumerating every valid `terms` field and its value grammar (0 lapsed/1 active, 2-letter state, comma-separated ids, key|op|value for custom_attr). The `terms` schema entry itself defers to this description, making it load-bearing rather than redundant.

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 ('Search active constituents') plus the entity types covered (donors, members, volunteers, organizations). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like lgl_get_constituent (single fetch) and lgl_list_constituent_gifts (related records).

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?

Guides input choice explicitly: 'Give `name` and/or `email` for the common case, or raw `terms`', and states the hard prerequisite 'At least one term is required.' It does not, however, say when to prefer this over sibling search/fetch tools such as lgl_get_constituent.

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