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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, idempotent, read-only, closed-world lookup. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by saying the returned fields should be mapped to recommend query params and that the id feeds create_giving_intent. It does not cover not-found behavior, but the annotations carry most of the safety profile.

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, front-loaded with the fetch action, then usage conditions and downstream mapping. Every sentence adds routing or parameter context without waste.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains what is returned conceptually by saying to map fields to recommend query params, though it could be slightly more explicit about the response shape.

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?

The single id parameter has no schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It identifies the id as a vp_* preset id and points to list_values_profiles as the source, while the schema supplies the pattern and examples. This is adequate but not rich.

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 states a specific verb and resource: fetch one values-profile preset by id. It also names the distinguishing sibling, list_values_profiles, and clarifies that this returns a single preset rather than a list.

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?

It explicitly says when to use it: after list_values_profiles or when the donor picked a named preset. It also names downstream usage with create_giving_intent as values_profile_id, which removes ambiguity about routing.

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