nonprofit_fetch_nonprofit_full_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full disclosure burden. It states the data source (ProPublica and IRS e-File), refresh behavior ('data refreshed on each call'), rate limit (30/minute), and auth requirements (none). It does not cover error behavior or latency, but the disclosed traits are adequate.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and output summary. It includes necessary details (API, rate limit, auth, intended audience) and a feedback mechanism. The feedback instruction adds length but serves a practical purpose. Overall, it is well-structured without excessive verbosity.

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 a single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers data source, refresh behavior, output fields, and rate limits. It also provides a feedback path for errors. It does not explain the health score calculation or risk flags in depth, but this is reasonable for the scope.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for the only parameter `ein`. The description does not explain what `ein` is (Employer Identification Number) or how to obtain it. This is a gap given the low schema coverage; the description should compensate but fails to define the parameter clearly.

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 performs 'complete nonprofit due diligence' and lists specific outputs like revenue trends, executive pay, risk flags, and health score. It distinguishes from siblings like `nonprofit_fetch_nonprofit_by_ein` and `nonprofit_fetch_nonprofit_financial_trends` by emphasizing the comprehensive 'full profile' nature.

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 identifies target users ('grant-makers, investors, and compliance teams') and context ('performing nonprofit due diligence'). It includes a feedback fallback for when the tool doesn't serve the need, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or give when-not-to-use guidance.

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