Get all donations

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

Annotations already declare the read-only, idempotent, open-world profile, so safety is covered. The description adds a concrete rate limit (100 req/10s) and a pagination cap, which is useful operational context. However, it doesn't explain what a 'donation' contains, ordering, or whether results are filterable.

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, front-loaded with rate-limit context, then the pagination behavior. It's efficient, though the page-size cap is repeated from the schema, which is mildly redundant.

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 paginated read tool with full annotation coverage and 100% schema description coverage, the definition covers rate limits and page capping but omits ordering, filtering behavior, and what the response contains. No output schema exists, so return-shape guidance would help.

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 schema fully documents all three parameters including the size cap. The description's pagination sentence largely duplicates the schema's 'size' description. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description adds little beyond the schema here.

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 clear verb+resource ('Returns all donations') and adds scope detail (pagination). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'list_contributions', which is a semantically adjacent resource, but the resource itself is unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance. It doesn't say when to prefer this over 'get_donation' (singular) or 'list_contributions'. The only conditional language is about page size capping, not about tool selection.

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