lapsed_donors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description aligns with a read operation. It adds context about the lapse condition but does not disclose pagination, default parameter values, or return format. It neither contradicts annotations nor provides substantial additional transparency.

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 a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without any waste.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional param, read-only, open world), the description is sufficiently complete. No output schema exists, so explaining return values is unnecessary. Annotations cover safety, and the description covers purpose and primary parameter.

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 has one parameter with 0% description coverage. The description mentions 'N months' which maps to the 'months_lapsed' parameter, adding some meaning. However, it does not explain the default value of 12 or any constraints on the number, so the coverage is partial.

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 the verb 'find' and the resource 'donors', with a specific condition 'gave previously but not in the last N months'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'recent_donors' and 'top_donors' which focus on different donor segments.

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 the tool is used for identifying lapsed donors but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations are provided, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling names.

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