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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=true, so the description does real work: it names the underlying endpoint (POST /donations), discloses the { data: {...} } body wrapping requirement, explains that `fields` is merged OVER the typed parameters, and states the return value. Given the destructiveHint, it could say more about side effects or failure behavior, but it adds meaningful context beyond the annotation.

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 the mutation warning and the offline-only use case, then moves to API mechanics. Dense but nearly every sentence carries information; only the enumeration of optional example fields (firstName, lastName, message, ...) is mildly redundant with the schema.

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?

Covers the pieces an agent needs for a 10-parameter, nested-object write tool: endpoint, body envelope, required fields, the flexible `fields` bag, and the return value. There is no output schema, and the description compensates by saying it returns the created donation; error and idempotency behavior remain unaddressed.

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 the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by restating which fields the API strictly requires (amount, currency, email, type, method), by spelling out that amount is in cents/smallest currency unit, and by explaining the `fields` escape hatch for everything else. The merge-precedence detail is the most valuable addition for an agent filling this payload.

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?

Opens with 'MUTATES Raisely data: records a donation' — a specific verb plus resource — and immediately narrows scope to offline/manual donations like cash or cheque. That is enough to separate it from every read-oriented sibling (raisely_get_donation, raisely_list_donations) and from raisely_update_profile.

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?

Explicitly names the use case ('use for OFFLINE/manual donations — e.g. cash or cheque'), which is the key routing signal versus online donation flows. It stops short of stating when not to use it (e.g. that online/gateway payments should not be created this way), so it is strong but not complete.

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