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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and closed-world lookup, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it explains the exact-match/self-serve-discovery fallback and that results are pre-searched against our EIN.

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-loads the input and the return set in a tight block, and every clause carries information. It is a dense run-on with heavy parenthetical lists, but nothing is superfluous.

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 carries the burden of describing returns and does so fully: match status, rate, annual cap, platform URL, and EIN pre-search, plus the no-match fallback. Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret it 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 description coverage is 100% and there is a single required param, so the schema already defines 'employer'. The description's examples (including rate annotations like 'ExxonMobil 3:1') add modest flavor but little syntax or format guidance beyond what the schema 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 (employer matching-gift lookup) and immediately enumerates the returned facts: match status, rate, cap, and platform URL. This is clearly distinguishable from adjacent siblings like match_donor_intent and match_grant_intent, which concern donor/grant intent rather than employer programs.

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 trigger condition is clear (you have an employer name and want matching-gift facts), and the description discloses the fallback path when there is no exact match. It does not, however, explicitly name a sibling alternative or state when NOT to use this tool.

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