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 the HTTP endpoint and the return shape '{ data:[...], pagination }', which is valuable since no output schema exists. It omits auth requirements and rate-limit behavior, but the added return structure is real context beyond the annotations.

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 core action and free of filler. Slightly terse given the sibling ambiguity, but nothing is wasted.

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 read-only list tool with 100% param coverage, the description supplies endpoint mapping, filter mechanism, and return shape, which largely compensates for the missing output schema. The main remaining gap is disambiguation from the scoped donation-list siblings.

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 schema already documents limit, offset, and the free-form params object. The description restates the same filter examples (campaign, status, sort, order) already present in the schema's params property, adding no new syntax or semantics — baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource and maps it to the underlying API call (GET /donations), which is genuinely useful. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like raisely_list_campaign_donations or raisely_list_user_donations, so an agent cannot tell from the description whether this returns all donations or a scoped set.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative sibling (e.g. list_campaign_donations for a scoped query) is named. The filter examples hint at supported use but do not route the agent between the many list_* siblings.

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