list_donations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only adds the scope 'received' but does not mention return format, pagination, authentication needs, or whether the operation is read-only. For a list operation, this leaves the agent guessing about the tool's behavior.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. The word 'reçus' (received) adds value by specifying the subset of donations. It is appropriately concise, though it could be enhanced with parameter information without losing efficiency.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description is far too sparse to be complete. It does not address the three parameters, default behavior, pagination, or the structure of the response. An agent would need to infer too much to use this tool reliably.

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 schema has zero description coverage for its three parameters (limit, status, sqlfilters), and the description does not explain any of them. The agent receives no information about what these parameters do, how they affect the results, or acceptable values, which is a significant gap.

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 verb 'Lister' (list) and the resource 'dons/donations reçus' (received donations), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_donation (single item) and create_donation (creation). The addition of 'received' narrows the scope effectively.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_donation or other list tools. It does not mention filtering contexts, how to combine with other tools, or when a different tool would be more appropriate. The description only states the action without any usage direction.

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