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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), yet the description adds substantive behavior: ordering semantics (largest first within USD/EUR/GBP then other currencies, never converted), a published-only filter, and argument-validation behavior (unknown arguments rejected). This is real context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the noun-phrase purpose followed by contents and then arguments; every clause carries information. The dense parenthetical ordering rule is long but earns its place rather than being filler.

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 must explain what is returned, and it does so thoroughly (rounds, news, one event, podcast episode) plus the ordering rule and published-only constraint. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'date' parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description restates the same format and omission rule rather than adding new meaning, 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 resource (one edition of the Builders in Fintech daily digest, weekdays) and enumerates exactly what it contains (equity rounds, news, one event, podcast episode). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like funding_summary, largest_rounds, or get_content without opening their schemas.

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?

Gives clear operating context: omit the date for the latest published edition, only published editions are returned, and unknown arguments are rejected. It does not name an alternative tool or state when to prefer this over funding_summary/largest_rounds, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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