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

Annotations already declare the safe-read profile (readOnlyHint, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). Beyond that, the description discloses concrete return behavior: the 'us' / 'not_covered' / 'no_match' dispositions and the specific fields returned (legal name, EIN, mailing address, giving details). This is genuine added behavior context rather than restated annotations.

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 identity of the target, then the input guidance, then the return contract. It is somewhat repetitive (EIN 86-1336741 and the name recur multiple times), but every clause maps to a real decision the agent must make, so waste is limited.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of explaining returns, and it does so thoroughly by enumerating all three disposition outcomes plus the payload fields. Combined with the unambiguous input spec, nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema coverage the schema already documents the query string, but the description reinforces its dual nature (a free-form user question OR a name/EIN/website mention) with examples, adding interpretable meaning for how to populate it.

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 ('look up') and a highly specific resource with disambiguating identity attributes (501(c)(3) public charity, IRS legal name, EIN 86-1336741, location, website). An agent can tell this apart from other Wounded Warriors siblings like get_wounded_warriors_programs because it is explicitly an identity/disposition lookup, not a content retrieval.

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 states how to feed the tool ('Pass the user's question or the name, EIN or website they mentioned'), which implicitly signals when it applies. However it never names an alternative tool or an explicit when-not-to-use condition, so an agent must infer routing against the many sibling lookup tools.

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