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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the exact API endpoint and the return shape ('{ data:[...], pagination }'), giving insight into pagination behavior. It does not contradict the annotations and provides useful context beyond the read-only hint, though it does not cover every edge case.

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 concise sentence conveying purpose, API reference, and return format without any filler. Each clause adds value, and it is front-loaded with the convenience/use case.

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 simple read-only list operation with one required parameter and well-described optional params, the description is sufficiently complete: it specifies the endpoint, the return structure, and the scope. However, it doesn't mention the open-ended 'params' object details or how to use it beyond the schema, and there is no output schema to fall back on. Still, the core context is covered, earning a 4.

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 clear descriptions for uuid, limit, offset, and params. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond the schema; the endpoint reference indirectly reinforces the parameters but adds minimal new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'a donor's giving history' and explicitly names the Raisely API endpoint GET /users/{uuid}/donations, which uniquely identifies the operation as listing donations for a specific user. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_donations (general) and get_donation (single donation).

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 implies usage for retrieving a specific user's donation history via the 'Convenience' label and the endpoint structure, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like list_donations or list_campaign_donations. Context is clear but exclusions/alternatives are not articulated.

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