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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description reinforces this with 'read-only; schedules cannot be changed here'. It adds the underlying endpoint (POST /reporting/recurring/{id}), a minor behavioral detail, but says nothing about the response payload or what fields a schedule contains.

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?

It is a single compact sentence with the key identity and scope front-loaded and zero filler. The trailing endpoint string is of marginal value but costs little space.

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 simple two-parameter read with full annotation coverage, the essentials (single schedule, by id, read-only) are present. With no output schema, however, the description could have stated what a schedule returns or noted the include_contact default's effect on output, leaving a modest gap.

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 both recurring_id and include_contact (including the 'off by default' behavior) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond identifying the lookup key, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb (retrieve/get) and resource (one recurring donation schedule) with a scoping constraint (by id), which cleanly separates it from the sibling qgiv_list_recurring_schedules. It does not name the sibling explicitly, so it falls just short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

It implies when this is appropriate (fetch a single schedule by id, read-only) and adds a caution that schedules 'cannot be changed here', which steers the agent away from expecting mutation. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative for cases like listing or updating schedules.

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