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

It goes far beyond annotations by detailing the exact contents and state of the returned data. Specifying elements like 'decision_brief,' 'donate_url (next_action),' and the distinction between 'modeled: true / guaranteed: false' provides rich, actionable behavioral context about the output.

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?

The description is highly dense but structurally effective. It combines the core action, the identification criteria, and the comprehensive data payload in a concise manner without unnecessary jargon.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description provides a complete behavioral contract by listing all major fields returned, including the specific status flags like 'modeled: true / guaranteed: false,' leaving no ambiguity for the agent.

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?

Since schema coverage is 0%, the description must carry all semantic meaning. It successfully defines the input as a 'stable org_id' and clarifies that the input could refer to an organization, program, or fund, thereby enriching the context beyond the pattern matching in the schema.

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?

The description clearly states the function: 'Fetch one organization / program / fund record.' It is highly specific about the nature of the record and how it is identified using the 'stable org_id'.

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 establishes a strong context for usage by specifying that it operates on a 'stable org_id.' This inherently suggests that this tool is the mechanism for fetching a known entity, differentiating it from list/search functions.

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