List Giving Funds

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by specifying the return format options (markdown/json) and error behavior ('Returns "Error: ..." if the request fails'), which are not covered by annotations. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Error) and uses bullet points for readability. It is appropriately sized, but includes some redundancy with the schema (e.g., repeating parameter defaults). Every sentence serves a purpose, though minor trimming could improve efficiency.

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 annotations cover safety and idempotency, and the description adds return format and error details, the tool is well-documented for a read-only listing operation. However, without an output schema, the description could better explain the structure of returned fund objects (e.g., field descriptions), though it lists key attributes like name and ledger code.

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 each parameter fully documented in the input schema. The description repeats parameter details (limit, offset, response_format) without adding meaningful semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining pagination strategies or format use cases. 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 ('giving funds in Planning Center Giving'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like pco_list_donations or pco_list_people by focusing on funds, which is a distinct resource type in the system.

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 context through the resource name ('giving funds'), but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no statements about prerequisites, when-not scenarios, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving usage decisions to inference.

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