donor_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the output includes (totals and per-recipient breakdown), but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or how it handles missing donors. The behavioral information is minimal.

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 extremely concise (one sentence, 12 words) and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, its brevity comes at the cost of missing important details about parameters and usage, which slightly reduces the score.

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 has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the parameters mean, what the exact return format is, or how to interpret the 'totals' and 'per-recipient breakdown'. The description would be insufficient for an AI agent to use the tool correctly without additional context.

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 adds no meaning to the three parameters. It does not explain that 'name' likely refers to the donor's name, nor does it clarify the purpose of 'cycle' and 'state' (e.g., election cycle, donor state). The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 tool's purpose: retrieving every contribution by a donor, with totals and per-recipient breakdown. It uses a specific verb (shows/retrieves) and identifies the resource (donor contributions). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like top_donors (which aggregates top donors) or search_contributions (which searches across contributions).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify that it is for looking up a specific donor's history, nor does it mention situations where other tools (e.g., search_contributions) would be more appropriate. No exclusions or context provided.

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