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 context by disclosing the return envelope ({ data:[...], pagination }), which matters since there is no output schema. It does not cover failure behavior (e.g. unknown uuid) or whether results are ordered.

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 compact fragments with the purpose front-loaded and zero filler. The 'Convenience:' label is slightly cryptic but costs almost nothing, and no sentence 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 4-parameter tool with a nested free-form params object and no output schema, the description does cover the return envelope and the upstream mapping, which is the main missing piece. It remains thin on pagination semantics and on what the free-form params filters actually accept beyond the schema's examples.

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 uuid, limit, offset, and the params passthrough are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g. which filter keys are commonly useful), so the 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 and resource (list a donor's giving history) and pins it to the concrete upstream endpoint GET /users/{uuid}/donations, so intent is unambiguous. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with siblings like raisely_list_donations or raisely_list_campaign_donations, leaving the scoping distinction to be inferred from the name.

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 word 'Convenience' hints this is a shortcut over a more general call, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. An agent gets no signal on choosing this over raisely_list_donations, raisely_list_campaign_donations, or a raw raisely_request.

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