community.preview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows the tool is safe and side-effect free. The description adds one useful behavioral detail ('never processes a payment') that goes beyond the raw annotations, but it does not cover other behavioral aspects like return format, auth requirements, or the meaning of the 25/75 split.

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, tightly packed sentence with no filler. It front-loads the main action and immediately follows with a critical negative constraint, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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?

For a tool with two required parameters (one an untyped array of objects) and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify what '25/75' means, what the contributions array should look like, or what the preview returns, and it does not resolve ambiguity against the sibling budget.preview.

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 by explaining parameter semantics. It fails to explain what 'contributions' should contain, how 'gross_revenue_cents' relates to the 25/75 allocation, or the expected structure of the array. The vague '25/75 contribution allocation' does not provide actionable parameter-level meaning.

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 action ('Preview a 25/75 contribution allocation') and explicitly negates payment processing, giving agents a clear sense of the tool's core purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling budget.preview, relying on the tool name to convey the domain distinction.

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 offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like budget.preview or policy.evaluate. 'Never processes a payment' implies a non-payment context but never names a condition or alternative tool, leaving usage decisions to inference.

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