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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description has a lower burden. It adds useful substance by enumerating giving methods and specifying returned data such as payee, mailing address, EIN, action URLs, and matching-gift platforms, with no contradiction.

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 dense sentences with zero filler: the first establishes the entity and purpose, and the second lists methods and return values. The important information is front-loaded.

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 read-only lookup with one optional enum parameter, full schema coverage, and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. It supplies method and return-field context despite no output schema; only sibling routing guidance is missing.

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%, and the single method parameter is fully documented by the enum and its description. The description lists giving methods but does not add syntax or filtering semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 verb+resource: official giving instructions for Wounded Warriors, including supported methods and returned fields. It is clear what the tool retrieves, but does not distinguish it from related siblings such as get_donate_options or get_legacy_giving.

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 use when a donor needs giving instructions, but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. With multiple related donation and giving siblings, the lack of routing advice is a clear gap.

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