Get contributions awaiting thank you

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: a concrete rate limit (100 requests / 10 seconds per shop) and a capping behavior on the page size. It does not mention auth requirements or the default filtering 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?

Two sentences plus an italicized rate-limit note; the operational constraint is front-loaded and the functional statement follows. No redundant filler, though the page-size cap is duplicated verbatim from the schema.

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 7-parameter, all-optional read tool with no output schema, the description explains the resource and pagination cap but leaves important gaps: what a returned contribution looks like, and whether the default results are limited to WAITING contributions (the title implies 'awaiting thank you' while the state param accepts SENT/CANCELLED/SKIPPED). An agent could call it but might misread the default scope.

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 the baseline is 3. The description repeats the page-size cap that the schema already states and adds nothing about the state enum values, the search syntax, or the account label semantics for the remaining parameters.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Returns paginated list of orders, donations, and other contributions that can be thanked'), and the 'that can be thanked' qualifier distinguishes it from plain siblings like list_orders and list_donations by scoping to actionable contributions. It doesn't, however, explicitly name those siblings as alternatives.

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?

Nothing tells the agent when to choose this tool over list_orders, list_donations, or get_thank_you. The phrase 'can be thanked' hints at intent, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance.

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