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 genuine value beyond that by disclosing the underlying endpoint (GET /donations/{uuid}) and the response envelope shape ({ data:{...} }), which matters because there is no output schema.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler: purpose, endpoint mapping, return shape. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 single-record read with one fully-documented parameter and a readOnly annotation, this covers purpose, endpoint, and return envelope. It omits error behavior (e.g., what happens when the uuid is not found), which is a minor remaining 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% — the uuid parameter is documented as 'The donation uuid.' The description only restates 'by uuid', adding no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance, so the baseline 3 for a fully-documented single parameter is correct.

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 ('Fetch') and resource ('a single donation by uuid'), and the word 'single' implicitly separates it from the list_donations/list_user_donations siblings. It stops short of naming the alternative it is not, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Usage is only implied: use this when you already have a donation uuid and need exactly one record. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to the sibling tools (raisely_list_donations, raisely_list_user_donations) that cover the bulk-retrieval case.

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