nexus_get_user_donation_preferences

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds current-user scoping and the v2 GraphQL implementation detail, but much of the return-field information is likely already captured by the output schema, and no additional behavioral traits such as auth needs or rate limits are disclosed.

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 compact and front-loaded: one sentence states the purpose, one compact block lists return fields, and one short sentence names the editing counterpart. There is no filler or redundant explanation.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with a rich annotation set and an output schema, the description covers everything needed for correct invocation: the resource, the current-user scope, the returned fields, and the related mutation tool. Nothing essential is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description usefully reinforces that the target is the current user, which is the only meaningful parameter-like information needed here.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the current user's Donation Points donation preferences (v2 GraphQL).' It lists the returned fields and names the companion update tool, which clearly distinguishes it from the many nexus_get_* and preference-related siblings.

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 clearly frames this as read-only retrieval and explicitly routes editing to nexus_update_user_donation_preferences with 'Edit with...'. It does not explicitly contrast with nexus_get_preferences or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of the strongest when/when-not guidance.

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