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 real value beyond that by disclosing the response shape ({ data, pagination }) and that `params` are sent verbatim, which helps the agent reason about output and filtering behavior.

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: identity, endpoint, filtering, and return shape, with the resource purpose front-loaded. Nothing is padded and every clause carries 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?

With no output schema, including the { data, pagination } return shape and the params-merge note is the right compensating detail for a 3-param list tool with a nested object argument. Only minor omissions (e.g. noting defaults or total-count semantics) remain.

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 limit, offset, and params are already fully documented in the schema. The description only restates the params-filtering mechanism without adding syntax or semantics beyond it, so 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 users') and clarifies what a user is (donors/supporters/fundraisers), plus the underlying Raisely endpoint. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the singular raisely_get_user, but never names siblings explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 only usage instruction is 'Filter via `params`', which is a how-to rather than a when-to-use. There is no guidance on choosing this over raisely_get_user (single lookup) or raisely_list_user_donations (scoped listing), leaving the agent to infer.

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