nonprofit_fetch_nonprofit_financial_trends

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint as true, establishing safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: rate limit of 30/minute, no authentication required, and the feedback mechanism. No contradictions with 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 description is somewhat long but well-structured: it front-loads the main purpose, then details outputs, parameters, constraints, and relations. Every sentence adds value, and the flow is logical. It is not overly concise but avoids redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema (indicated but not shown), the description covers all essential aspects: main purpose, key outputs, parameter constraints, rate limit, auth, sibling relation, and error handling. Annotations are rich, so the description is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters (ein and years). The description restates the years range and default, and provides an example EIN format, but does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves a 5-year financial trend for US nonprofits, listing specific outputs like trend_direction, CAGR, and year-by-year trends. It distinguishes itself from the sibling nonprofit_fetch_nonprofit_full_profile by explicitly mentioning that it adds multi-year context, fulfilling the requirement of a specific verb+resource with sibling differentiation.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool (for multi-year context) and names the alternative (nonprofit_fetch_nonprofit_full_profile). It also includes a fallback instruction to call report_feedback if the response does not serve the user's need, which is excellent usage guidance.

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