search_individual_donations

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states it searches and returns a list. It mentions no side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or other behavioral traits, leaving the agent uninformed about potential constraints.

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 concise with a short German summary and a structured docstring for arguments and returns. It front-loads the main purpose, though mixing languages slightly reduces clarity.

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 simple search tool with three parameters, the description covers purpose, parameters, and return format. It lacks details on pagination or result limits, but overall provides sufficient context for typical use.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning: donor_name can be just last name, min_amount defaults to 200 USD, election_cycle is the cycle. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though format of election_cycle could be clearer.

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 it searches for individual donations from a person to election campaigns, using both German and English. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_pac_spending and get_top_donors_by_industry by focusing on individual donors.

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 explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage context is implied by the tool's name and purpose, but no when-not or alternative scenarios are mentioned.

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