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.