Build donate link

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

Against readOnlyHint=true, the description adds genuinely new behavior: the tool only builds a link and the gift completes on Every.org, so no transaction occurs in the tool itself, and amounts are USD. It does not mention auth requirements, whether repeated calls are cheap, or what invalid inputs do, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool produces, with no filler. The telegraphic phrasing 'nonprofit is special-fundraiser' is slightly compressed and could be misread, but the overall structure is efficient.

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 22-parameter customization surface with a nested object (partnerMetadata) and no output schema, the description covers only the core path and never says what is returned (a URL string) or how the many optional parameters (methods, frequency, staging, webhookToken) affect the link. Adequate for the minimum viable call but incomplete for the full surface.

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 only 55% schema description coverage across 22 parameters, the description must compensate but largely restates schema text ('Amounts are US dollars' vs. amount/minValue descriptions; special-fundraiser guidance vs. the nonprofit description). Roughly half the parameters (methods, frequency, noExit, exitUrl, webhookToken, partnerMetadata, themeColor, etc.) get no explanation beyond the schema.

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 specific verb (build) and resource (Every.org donate URL) and clarifies the deferred outcome ('The donor completes the gift on Every.org'), which separates it from the read-only lookup siblings like get_nonprofit and get_fundraiser. An agent can identify this as a URL-construction tool without opening the schema.

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?

It gives conditional parameter routing ('For a fundraiser, pass its slug', 'for a multi-nonprofit fundraiser, nonprofit is special-fundraiser') but never says when to prefer this tool over siblings such as get_fundraiser for retrieving a slug, nor any prerequisites (e.g., where the slug/EIN comes from). Usage is implied rather than framed as when/when-not.

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