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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the returned field set and the underlying endpoint, which is useful, but says nothing about pagination behavior or result sizing despite the schema exposing skip/take. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The primary action and returned payload are front-loaded, then the alternative tool and endpoint follow. Every clause earns its place.

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, the description usefully compensates by listing the shape of each returned gift row, and the sibling routing closes the main ambiguity. Only pagination/sorting behavior is left entirely to the schema.

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 skip, take, sort_by, descending and contact_id are all documented in the schema already. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or defaults, which is acceptable given full schema coverage.

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 contact's giving history) and enumerates the returned fields (gift id, type, date, amount, segment, batch). It explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling virtuous_get_gift, which handles designations and full detail.

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?

Names the alternative (virtuous_get_gift) and the condition that selects it ('for designations and full detail'). There is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g., how it relates to the gift list embedded in search tools), but the routing instruction is clear.

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