List items (members, tickets, donations...)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description contributes the fact that results carry custom field answers, but says nothing about result volume, pagination behavior, or rate limits beyond what parameters imply.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then the scoping rule, then illustrative examples. No filler. It is slightly packed but every clause carries information an agent can use.

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 15-parameter, no-output-schema listing tool, the description is adequate: scope, examples, and custom-field inclusion are covered. It omits what an item record contains and how this differs from orders/payments, which matters given several similarly shaped sibling list tools.

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% across all 15 parameters, so the schema already documents date ranges, enum values, pagination, and the formType/formSlug pairing. The description only reinforces the formType + formSlug combination and the presence of custom fields; it adds no syntax or filtering semantics beyond the schema.

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 (list) and resource (items) and clarifies the two scopes: whole organization vs a single form identified by formType + formSlug. The examples (members of a membership campaign, participants of an event) make 'item' concrete. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like helloasso_list_orders or helloasso_get_item, so an agent must infer that boundary.

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 conditional phrasing 'by the organization or by one form (formType + formSlug)' implies how to scope the query, which is genuine usage guidance. However, there is no explicit when-not statement, no mention of when to prefer list_orders/list_payments, and no guidance on when to use helloasso_get_item for a single record.

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