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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive safety, and the description adds real behavioral context: output is sanitized, a disclaimer is always attached, and deductibility.assert_personal_deductibility is always false. It does not cover error/not-found behavior or freshness of the data, but the added return-value semantics are substantial.

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?

Three short sentences, all load-bearing, with the scoping statement and the safety-critical constraint front-loaded. The terse fragment 'Prefer before asserting US deductibility' costs a little readability but wastes no space.

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 does the necessary work of naming a key returned field and the always-included disclaimer, which is what an agent needs to avoid misuse. Missing only edge-case behavior (unknown org, staleness) for a single-parameter read.

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 0% and the description never mentions org_id, its required status, or the org_ slug format required by the pattern. The schema's pattern and example make the parameter constructible, but the description contributes nothing to parameter meaning.

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 resource and output shape: a sanitized trust/tax-status summary for an org, plus the always-on disclaimer that comes with it. It is distinguishable from get_org/get_trust by the 'sanitized summary' framing, though it never explicitly contrasts with get_trust, which is the closest sibling.

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?

Gives an explicit usage trigger ('Prefer before asserting US deductibility') and a hard prohibition on claiming personal deductibility for a specific donor. No exclusion conditions or named alternative (e.g. get_trust) are given, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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