Search nonprofits

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description usefully adds the result shape (name, EIN, slug, description, causes, profileUrl), which matters because no output schema exists, though it says nothing about ordering, pagination beyond the take cap, or result relevance.

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, zero filler: the action and source are front-loaded, the return payload follows. Every clause earns its place.

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 3-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the source system and the returned fields while the schema covers every parameter. It is nearly complete; only the relationship to sibling search/browse tools is left implicit.

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 take, query and causes all documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing about parameter syntax or interaction (e.g. that causes are OR-combined), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Search Every.org nonprofits by name') and even lists the fields returned. It does not, however, differentiate itself from overlaps such as browse_nonprofits or list_causes, which the agent must infer from the name alone.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when not to use it, and no routing to siblings (e.g. get_nonprofit for a single record, browse_nonprofits for unfiltered listing). The only hint, a reference to list_causes, lives in the schema for the causes parameter, not in the description.

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