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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and non-openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying what is returned (payee, mailing address, EIN, action URLs, matching-gift platforms), which is important since there is no output schema.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and EIN before the method list and return payload. The enumeration is dense but each item corresponds to a real method or return field, so little is wasted.

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 correctly takes on the burden of stating return fields, and it does so. The method enum is fully documented in the schema, so nothing essential is missing for a read-only lookup tool.

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 the schema already documents the single method parameter and its enum, establishing the baseline of 3. The description does expand the enum values ('corporate matching' for corporate_match, 'planned giving' for bequest), adding modest meaning but not going beyond restating the options.

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 names a precise resource (official giving instructions for Wounded Warriors, identified by EIN) and enumerates the giving methods covered, so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It stops short of distinguishing itself from siblings like get_donate_options or get_legacy_giving, which clearly overlap.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. With visibly overlapping siblings such as get_donate_options and get_legacy_giving (planned giving/bequest), the description leaves the agent to guess which tool to call.

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