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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: the underlying Raisely API endpoint and the return shape { data:[...], pagination }. It does not contradict annotations and adds value without being verbose.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, API endpoint, return shape. No filler or redundancy. The intent is front-loaded in the first phrase.

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?

Given the rich schema (100% coverage) and readOnly annotation, the description is nearly complete. It provides the API endpoint and return shape, which is important since there is no output schema. It could mention authentication or error cases, but those are not critical for a simple read-only listing tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides; it only reinforces that the tool lists donations for a campaign. This meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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?

Description states 'list donations for a specific campaign', which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It distinguishes from sibling list_donations by explicitly scoping to a campaign, and the 'Convenience' label signals it's a filtered convenience wrapper.

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 phrase 'for a specific campaign' clearly implies this is the tool to use when you need donations filtered by campaign, as opposed to a general donations list. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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