in_kind_value

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions required item fields but does not disclose the calculation behavior (e.g., summing fair_market_value * quantity), error handling, or whether extra item properties are ignored. This is insufficient for a mutation/calculation tool with no annotation safety profile.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose in the first phrase, and the parameter requirements follow. Every sentence provides value without redundancy or filler.

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?

The description covers the input structure but omits the core calculation logic (how fair_market_value and quantity are combined) and error behavior. While an output schema exists, the missing computation detail leaves a gap for a simple tool.

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 schema provides only an 'items' array of empty objects (0% coverage). The description compensates by specifying that each item needs 'description' and 'fair_market_value' and optional 'quantity' with default 1. This adds crucial meaning beyond the schema, though it omits types/formats.

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 'Total donated goods and services' clearly identifies the resource (donated goods/services) and the purpose (calculating a total), distinguishing it from siblings like volunteer_time_value. While the verb is implied rather than explicit ('Calculate total...'), it is still understandable and specific.

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 implies usage by stating the required fields ('description', 'fair_market_value') and optional 'quantity', so the agent knows when to use it. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like volunteer_time_value or mention any exclusions.

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