list_extra_purchases

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: emails are redacted by default, and full emails belong to the account owner and require appropriate handling. This is useful privacy-related behavior not present in the 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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The primary action and default behavior are front-loaded, and the privacy caveat is delivered efficiently. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With no output schema and low parameter coverage, the description leaves gaps around pagination, date filtering, and result shape. The strong annotations reduce safety concerns, and the parameter names are fairly self-explanatory, but an agent still lacks enough detail to confidently use limit, since, and max_pages 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only references include_emails implicitly and says nothing about limit, since, or max_pages. The schema provides raw constraints but no semantic meaning, leaving three of four parameters under-described.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('recent Extras purchases'), and an important behavioral qualifier (emails redacted by default). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_supporters and list_subscriptions, which target different resources.

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 conveys clear context for what the tool does and hints at the privacy-sensitive handling when include_emails is true. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of sibling tools like list_supporters or summary, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative guidance.

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