Get Donation

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. While annotations already indicate this is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true), the description discloses the error behavior ('Returns "Error: Resource not found" if the ID is invalid') and output format options. This enhances the agent's understanding of how the tool behaves in practice.

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 perfectly structured and concise. It begins with the core purpose, then clearly sections parameter information and return/error details. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words or redundant information. The formatting with clear sections (Args, Returns, Error) enhances readability.

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 simple read operation with comprehensive annotations and full schema coverage, this description provides complete contextual information. It covers purpose, parameters, return values, and error handling. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the clear description of what's returned ('Full donation record including amount, payment details, fund designations, and dates').

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents both parameters (id and response_format). The description mentions the parameters but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get detailed information') and resource ('about a specific donation by ID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like pco_list_donations (which lists multiple donations) and other get_* tools that target different resources. The description explicitly identifies the target resource and operation.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you need detailed information about a specific donation identified by ID. It doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternatives like pco_list_donations, but the specificity of 'by ID' strongly implies this is for single-record retrieval rather than listing operations.

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