get_corporate_giving

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions cross-linking to charities and describes output fields, but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or disclose any behavioral traits like rate limits or authorization requirements. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Description is two sentences with no wasted words. Main purpose is front-loaded, and additional details are concisely listed. Every sentence adds value.

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 simple parameter schema and lack of output schema, the description covers the main output (recipients, amounts, types, foundation name, total community investment) and cross-references. Could be improved by mentioning time period or data freshness, but still good.

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 100% for the single parameter 'ticker', which already has a clear description. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 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?

Description clearly states it retrieves corporate donations, sponsorships, and community investment for an NZX company. It lists specific data points (recipients, amounts, donation types) and example queries, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools.

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?

Explicit usage examples like 'what charities does [company] support?' and queries for corporate giving, community investment, sponsorship, and donations by ticker provide clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly exclude cases where it should not be used or mention alternative tools.

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