get_constituent

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

The description explains the key behavioral trait: 'giving totals computed from the full gift history' – an important detail not obvious from the name. With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It doesn't clarify idempotency, performance implications (computation might be slow), or whether verbose=true also includes these totals. This is adequate but not comprehensive for an un-annotated tool.

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 that clearly states the action, the input, and the unique output. Every word adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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's moderate complexity (2 params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description adequately covers fetching by ID and the computed totals. It could improve by noting whether giving totals appear only in the compact summary or also in verbose mode, and whether the tool requires specific permissions. But overall it is sufficient for an agent to use 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 100%, so both parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides (the id field description is simply 'LGL constituent id.' and verbose says 'Return the full, untrimmed LGL object instead of the compact summary.'). 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and clearly identifies the resource ('one constituent's profile') and the identifier ('LGL id'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_constituents (search vs. fetch by ID) and get_constituent_gifts (profile vs. gifts list). Including 'giving totals computed from the full gift history' adds distinct value.

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 implies usage when you have a specific LGL id and need a full profile with computed giving totals, which differentiates from search_constituents (when you don't have an ID) and get_constituent_gifts (when you need gift details, not totals). However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative guidance for borderline cases.

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