List Donation Batches

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

Annotations already cover key behavioral traits (read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world), so the description adds minimal value by specifying the return format and error handling. It does not disclose additional context like rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination details beyond what annotations imply, but it does not contradict them either.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose followed by parameter and return details in a structured format. However, the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are somewhat redundant with the schema, slightly reducing efficiency, but overall it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 low complexity (list operation), rich annotations, and full schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It lacks output schema but describes return values and errors adequately. Minor gaps include no mention of sorting, filtering options, or sibling tool differentiation, but it suffices for basic use.

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%, with all parameters well-documented in the input schema. The description repeats parameter details without adding significant meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining why 'response_format' matters or how 'offset' interacts with pagination. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('donation batches in Planning Center Giving'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'pco_list_donations', which might cause confusion about scope, preventing a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'pco_list_donations' or other list tools. It lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, offering only basic functional information without usage scenarios.

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