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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by disclosing the 'active gifts' filter scope, the mandatory-term validation rule, and the underlying LGL endpoint. It omits any note on pagination semantics or result volume, which keeps it from a 5.

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-loads purpose and examples before the dense term-field enumeration. The long parenthetical list is run-on, but every element earns its place given the raw query-string API.

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?

For a complex 9-param search with no output schema, it covers purpose, the required-term constraint, query vocabulary, and points to the GET endpoint. It does not describe the gift record shape returned, a minor gap since no output schema exists.

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%, but 'terms' is an opaque raw-string array in the schema; the description compensates by enumerating every supported field and its operator syntax (in|ni, gte|lte|btw, bl, date formats), which is the only place that knowledge exists.

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 (search) and resource (gifts), scoped to 'active gifts across the account', and immediately illustrates the two canonical query shapes (date range, fund/campaign). It is clearly distinguishable from lgl_get_gift and lgl_list_constituent_gifts.

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?

Gives concrete usage context ('everything received in a date range, or gifts to one fund or campaign') and states the hard constraint 'At least one term is required'. It does not explicitly route the agent away from sibling list/get tools, but the context is clear enough to select it.

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