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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the safe read behavior, and the description adds useful context beyond that: the exact API path and the return shape `{ data:[...], pagination }`. It does not cover auth, rate limits, or edge cases, but for a simple read wrapper it provides solid behavioral context.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by the endpoint and return shape. There is no wasted text.

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 campaign-scoped read endpoint with full schema coverage and a readOnly annotation, the description supplies the key missing behavioral facts: the API route and the response envelope. An agent has enough information to select and invoke it correctly.

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 parameters such as limit, offset, campaign, and the verbatim params bag are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the endpoint path, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource (list donations) scoped to a specific campaign, and names the underlying API endpoint. That scope clearly distinguishes it from the broader donation-listing siblings without requiring schema inspection.

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' implies when to use it, but the description does not explicitly say when to prefer this over raisely_list_donations or raisely_list_user_donations. Usage is reasonably inferable but not guided.

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