get_funder_stats

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

The description is consistent with annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) and adds behavioral context by detailing the types of aggregated statistics returned. It does not introduce contradictions or undisclosed side effects.

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 a single, well-organized paragraph: a concise summary followed by a list of metrics and a usage statement. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 has one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value in detail (lifetime stats, distributions, etc.). It provides sufficient context for an agent to understand what to expect.

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?

The input schema fully describes the single parameter (ein) with a clear explanation, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add extra parameter information, aligning with the baseline score of 3.

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 gets aggregate giving statistics for a foundation, listing specific metrics like lifetime totals, averages, NTEE areas, and year-by-year breakdowns. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that provide detailed grant lists or funder profiles.

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 mentions it is 'useful for prospect targeting,' providing a usage hint. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_foundation_grants or get_funder_profile, nor does it specify exclusions.

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