Get fundraiser raised

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the response payload (amount in both cents and US dollars, supporter count, goal) and by flagging the dual-unit formatting, which is non-obvious. It says nothing about error behavior for unknown fundraisers, so it is not fully complete.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then lists the return fields. No filler, no redundancy with the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned values, which is the right move for a read tool. However, for a two-required-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, it leaves the caller without any notion of identifier formats or failure modes, so it is only minimally sufficient.

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 0% and both required parameters (nonprofit, fundraiser) are bare strings with no format guidance. The description does not compensate at all – it never explains whether these are slugs, URLs, or EINs, or how nonprofit and fundraiser relate. With low coverage the description was expected to carry this burden and does not.

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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (how much an Every.org fundraiser has raised), and enumerates the data returned (amount, supporter count, goal). This clearly separates it from the sibling get_fundraiser, which presumably returns fundraiser metadata rather than totals, though the description never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this when it wants a fundraiser's raised amount. There is no statement of when to prefer get_fundraiser over this tool, no prerequisites (e.g. needing a known nonprofit/fundraiser identifier first), and no exclusions.

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