ATTENTIO — darowizny i petycje

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that the response consists of items, each with an identifier, price in grosze, and payment-page address. This goes beyond the boolean annotations and is sufficient for a simple no-parameter read operation.

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 focused sentences: the first states the core return value, and the second describes the item fields. There is no filler, redundancy, or extraneous detail, and the most 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?

Since there is no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what the tool returns and does so by specifying id, price in grosze, and payment-page URL for each item. It does not precisely define what 'minimum and maximum' refer to, but for a zero-parameter static catalog read, the description is largely complete.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is effectively 100%, so there is nothing for the description to document. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter information.

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 uses the specific verb 'Zwraca' and clearly identifies the resource: donation amounts in the donation catalog, including a ladder of ready amounts, a custom-amount brick, and minimum/maximum. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like attentio-przygotuj-darowizne, so it lacks explicit differentiation, but the resource and action are unmistakable.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives. The usage context is only implied: an agent would call this to discover available donation amounts, likely before preparing a donation. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided, so it meets the 'implied usage' level.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, establishing a safe read operation. The description adds behavior beyond annotations by specifying the data scope and fields returned, including the status of the money collection. No contradictions.

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 focused sentences: the first front-loads the exact return payload, the second gives the user context for invocation. Every word earns its place; no repetition of schema or annotations.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool with rich annotations, the description fully covers what the agent needs: what data is returned and when to call it. Sibling similarity is handled through the explicit usage scenario; the lack of an output schema is compensated by enumerating the returned fields.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100% (empty object). As the baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description correctly implies no input is needed, there is nothing more to explain.

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 uses a specific verb ('Zwraca' – returns) and identifies the exact resource ('otwarte petycje stowarzyszenia') plus the returned fields (name, addressee, page URL, collection status). It also distinguishes the tool's use case from sibling tools by stating it is for donors asking what to support.

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?

Explicitly gives two concrete usage conditions: when a donor asks what they can donate to, or wants to support a specific cause. It does not name sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, but the provided conditions are clear and sufficient for selection.

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

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

Discloses important behavioral detail beyond annotations: the tool creates a session and returns a payment address but does NOT charge the card; the final payment is completed by a human. It also transparently explains the two return-address variants based on key presence.

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?

Every sentence carries a distinct fact: main action, key-based behavior, no-key behavior, ask-before guidance, no-charge guarantee, and currency rule. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no fluff.

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 tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns, how outputs differ based on parameters, and the crucial side-effect boundary (no charge). Combined with the schema, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description mostly reinforces schema details already present, such as full złoty amounts and the effect of kluczApi; it adds useful usage context but not significant new parameter semantics.

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 action and outcome: setting up a donation session and returning a payment address. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like katalog-darowizn, petycje, and zasady because it uniquely focuses on preparing a donation and producing a ready-to-pay link.

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?

Gives strong operational guidance: ask the donor for the amount before calling, do not guess, and explains the two different behaviors depending on whether kluczApi is provided. However, it does not explicitly name conditions for choosing this tool over sibling tools, though the context makes that choice fairly clear.

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

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description explicitly discloses behavioral traits such as 'no subscription by the agent' and 'we do not have card data', providing additional transparency about what the tool does not do. No contradictions with 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the main action ('returns payment rules') and then lists the specific rules. It is not verbose and effectively communicates all necessary information in a structured manner.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns: the payment rules, including their contents. This is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's output and use it correctly without additional context.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to describe. According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for 0 parameters. The description does not need to add any parameter information.

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 clearly states the tool returns payment rules for donations, listing specific content such as 'donation is not a purchase', 'refund within 14 days', and 'no card data'. This unambiguously defines the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from siblings like catalog or preparation tools.

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 does not provide any explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states what it returns, leaving it to the agent to infer that it is for retrieving donation rules. No when/when-not conditions are mentioned.

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