nonprofit_fetch_nonprofit_financial_trends

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the rate limit (30/minute), that no auth is required, and the data source. It also describes the return values including possible status values like INSUFFICIENT_DATA. It does not mention any side effects, which is acceptable for a read-only data fetch.

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 concise and well-structured, starting with the main purpose, then detailing outputs, parameter options, rate limit/auth, sibling relationship, and a fallback instruction. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary fluff.

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 (two parameters, one required) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides complete context: inputs, outputs, rate limits, auth requirements, and usage guidance. The inclusion of a feedback fallback enhances completeness.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the years parameter (range 1-10, default 5) and implies the ein parameter identifies the nonprofit. While it doesn't specify the exact format of the EIN, the description adequately covers the semantics for both parameters.

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 provides a 5-year financial trend for US nonprofits, listing specific outputs like revenue growth, expense ratios, and health score. It specifies the data source (IRS Form 990 via ProPublica) and distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning it complements nonprofit_fetch_nonprofit_full_profile with multi-year context.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool for multi-year financial trends and how it complements a sibling tool. It also provides a fallback instruction to call report_feedback if the response doesn't serve the user's need. However, it doesn't explicitly state situations when it should not be used, such as for single-year data or general information.

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