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

With only destructiveHint=true in annotations, the description carries most of the behavioral burden and does so well: the gift is matched to a contact/recurring gift/pledge, held until the nightly import, and only created after a user reviews and clicks Run. It also explicitly clarifies 'it does NOT charge anyone', which usefully counters the harsh destructiveHint. Missing auth/permission and idempotency-replay details.

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?

Front-loads the core action and pipeline behavior, then closes with the donor-identification hint and the API endpoint. Every sentence is doing work, though the endpoint citation and the redundant title line add little for an agent.

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 17-parameter, nested-object mutation with no output schema, the description conveys the essential lifecycle (held, reviewed, then created) and donor identification. It leaves gaps on return behavior and on several optional fields (designations, custom_fields, transaction_id), but the schema covers most of those adequately.

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 71% (mid-range), and the description only adds contact-matching semantics ('identify the donor with contact.id, contact.referenceId, or name/email') that the schema already largely documents. Nothing is said about transaction_id double-import behavior, designations splitting, or currency handling, so it does not compensate for the uncovered parameters.

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 ('Record a gift') plus the exact pipeline used, and the title/sibling set makes clear this is the gift-import path rather than contact/note/tag creation. An agent can distinguish it from virtuous_create_contact_transaction by the import-pipeline framing.

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?

Says this is 'the method Virtuous recommends' and scopes it to a donation already received, which gives a clear context for choosing it. It never names the alternative gift-creation sibling or states when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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