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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing the output nature (ready-to-paste sample language with EIN, legal name, and address pre-filled), which is not derivable from structured fields. It omits auth/permission requirements, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the tool's purpose and audience, then a dense enumeration of vehicles, then output behavior. Every element is relevant, though the parenthetical '(4 sample-language variants)' and list of acronyms make the single opening sentence heavy.

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 usefully covers return values (sample legal language with org identifiers pre-filled), the full set of supported vehicles, and the intended audience. It is essentially complete for a simple read tool, though it does not address ordering or how the 'all 6' default is packaged.

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 100% with a single well-documented enum parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description loosely mirrors the enum values (bequest, QCD, CRT, CLT) but adds no syntax or selection guidance beyond what the schema already provides, aside from the minor 'age 70.5+' detail on QCD.

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 resource (planned/legacy giving vehicles) and enumerates all six vehicle types, making the tool's scope unmistakable. It implies retrieval via 'Each returns ready-to-paste sample language' but never names a sibling tool to differentiate itself from, so it stops short of a 5.

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 names an audience ('major donors and estate attorneys') which implies the usage context, and the schema notes 'Omit for all 6' for the vehicle param. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or reference to alternatives like get_donate_options or estimate_donor_impact.

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