List causes

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

With readOnlyHint already declaring the safety profile, the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: the data snapshot date (2023-06-06) and the warning that the live API may contain newer slugs. It doesn't mention pagination or result size, but the staleness caveat is the key operational risk and is disclosed.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with what is listed and what consumes it, followed by the freshness caveat. Every clause earns its place with no 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?

For a zero-parameter reference-list tool there is no output schema, and the description supplies what an agent needs: the content (cause slugs), the downstream consumers, and a data-freshness warning. Only minor gaps remain, such as whether the list is paginated or exhaustive.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no arguments whose meaning needs explaining, and the description correctly implies a no-argument call.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List Every.org cause slugs') and explains the role the output plays for browse_nonprofits and a search causes filter. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with siblings like search_nonprofits or get_nonprofit, but the reference-lookup purpose is unambiguous.

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 states the usage context clearly: call this to obtain cause slugs that feed browse_nonprofits and the search causes filter. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative to avoid, but the intended workflow is evident.

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