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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes it as a safe read. Beyond that, the description discloses the return payload (balances, financial need, life-to-date giving), which matters because there is no output schema, and it names the backing endpoint. It stops short of noting pagination defaults or result limits.

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 tight sentences: purpose and returned data first, technical endpoint last. No filler, nothing repeated from the schema.

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 3-param search with no output schema, the description covers what is searched and roughly what comes back, and pagination is handled in the schema. A note on result counts or ordering would close the remaining gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so skip/take/search are fully documented in the schema and baseline is 3. The description's 'by name or code' merely restates the search parameter's documented behavior, adding no new syntax or matching rules.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Find projects') with an inline domain gloss ('funds / designations gifts are given to') and the matching key ('by name or code'). This clearly separates it from the sibling get_project (single fetch by ID) and the contact-oriented search tools.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Find ... by name or code', but the description never states when to prefer this over get_project (known ID) or how it relates to virtuous_search / virtuous_query. No exclusions or alternative routing are given.

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