List donations

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only listing but says nothing about ordering, pagination, volume of results, or whether a quarter filter can be supplied without a year — a real risk given both parameters are independent and optional.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the filter scope. No filler, no redundancy worth cutting.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and optionality adequately. It nonetheless leaves gaps an agent needs: whether quarter requires year, and any hint about the returned record shape or result size.

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 0%, and the description partially compensates: it names both filters, marks them optional, and explains the quarter is on a 1-4 scale. However, it adds nothing about the year format (four-digit or otherwise) or the interaction between year and quarter, leaving meaning to be guessed.

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 and resource ('List logged donations') plus the optional filter dimensions, so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It never distinguishes itself from siblings like quarterly_summary or totals, which cover adjacent reporting needs, so it falls short of a 5.

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 word 'optionally' signals that unfiltered listing is valid, which implies a use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over totals, quarterly_summary, or export_csv. The agent must infer its role from the name alone.

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