nonprofit_fetch_nonprofit_full_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. The description adds significant behavioral details: data refreshed on each call, rate limit 30/minute, no auth required, API sources and fallback, and explicit output components. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 fairly long but well-structured, front-loading the main purpose and outputs. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise.

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 complexity and the existence of an output schema, the description covers usage, behavior, output components, target audience, and error handling via report_feedback. It is comprehensive for due diligence 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 coverage is 100% and the schema already describes the ein parameter with format example. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what is in the schema.

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 sibling tools like nonprofit_fetch_nonprofit_by_ein and nonprofit_fetch_nonprofit_financial_trends by emphasizing comprehensiveness.

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 specifies target users (grant-makers, investors, compliance teams) and mentions reporting gaps via report_feedback. However, it does not explicitly tell when not to use this tool versus alternatives like the basic EIN lookup or financial trends tool.

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