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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so safety needs no restatement. The description adds real value beyond that: it names the closed set of matched_method values and the channel-specific instructions returned, telling the agent this is a deterministic classifier-style lookup rather than a free-form search.

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?

One dense, front-loaded sentence that leads with the transformation and ends with the return contract; no filler. Slightly long with two parenthetical example lists, but each element carries information.

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 compensates by enumerating the returned fields and the method taxonomy, which is exactly what an agent needs to consume the result. Nothing material is missing for a read-only, 3-parameter matching 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 description coverage is 100%, so query, amount and frequency are already documented in the schema. The description only restates that amount/frequency pre-fill the URL, adding little beyond the schema's own wording — baseline 3 applies.

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: transforming a free-text donor request into a matched giving method plus action URL, and enumerates the concrete outputs (matched_method, confidence, action URL, channel instructions). Examples of donor phrasing ("$50 monthly via card", "leave them in my will") make the input domain unambiguous and separate it from siblings like match_grant_intent or get_donate_options.

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 parenthetical examples imply the trigger condition (a donor expressing intent in free text), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no routing to alternatives such as get_donate_options (list all methods) or donation_instructions_wounded_warriors. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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