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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description confirms listing behavior and notes the optional unsettled filter, but adds nothing about pagination behavior or the 100-record cap beyond what annotations and schema already convey.

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 compact sentences: purpose first, then the GET endpoint reference. No filler. The endpoint detail is arguably redundant for an agent but not wasteful.

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 list operation with 100% schema coverage, the description is adequate but thin. It omits pagination guidance (top/skip relationship, 100-cap implications) and doesn't distinguish this tool from invoice/donation listing siblings, leaving some ambiguity an agent could resolve incorrectly.

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% – every one of the 8 parameters is documented in the schema, including top/skip, dates, contact/event ids, ids_only, and unsettled_only. The description merely restates the filter dimensions already fully described in the schema, 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 clear verb+resource ('List payments received') and adds the scoping dimensions (contact, event, unsettled, created-date range). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like wildapricot_list_donations or wildapricot_list_invoices, which an agent might confuse with payments.

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 description implies usage context by naming the optional scoping filters, but never says when to choose this tool over list_donations, list_invoices, or get_contact. No explicit when/when-not guidance is given.

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