donate_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: what the response contains (wallet addresses plus ENS/SNS domains) and which tokens are supported (SOL, ETH, USDC). It does not describe response shape, but it does more than repeat the annotations.

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 core purpose and the return contents are front-loaded in the first two sentences, which is the right order. However, 'Kiln is free, open-source software' and 'No payment is required -- Kiln is fully functional without donating' restate the same reassurance twice, and the ragged line breaks add noise without structure.

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?

With zero parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing what comes back, and it does so (addresses with ENS/SNS domains, supported tokens). It leaves the exact response structure unspecified, but for a simple informational lookup an agent has enough to call it and interpret the result.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Per the baseline for parameterless tools, this scores 4; the description neither helps nor hurts 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 concrete verb and resource: 'Get crypto wallet addresses to tip/donate to the Kiln project.' An agent immediately knows this returns donation addresses rather than performing a payment. It stops short of naming any sibling, but no sibling is a plausible confusable, so the cost is small.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this should be called when a user wants to support Kiln financially. There is no explicit 'call this when X' trigger or statement of what to do instead, though no alternative exists. The closing note that donating is optional is helpful context but is not usage routing.

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