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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavior not in the annotations: newest-first ordering, amounts never converted, size derived from the latest first/interim/final close with an amount, targets never reported as size, and sector exclusion. It lacks anything on pagination or result truncation beyond limit.

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?

One dense front-loaded sentence lists the returned fields, followed by short constraint sentences and an argument recap. It is efficient overall, though the closing argument list largely duplicates schema information and the long field enumeration front-loads verbosity.

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 read-only, five-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, ordering, currency handling, the derived size field, sector scope, default filtering and rejected arguments. That is enough for an agent to call it correctly and interpret results.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: date format YYYY-MM-DD is restated, the default close_type behavior is explained, and the restriction to approved fintech-relevant funds clarifies fintech_focus semantics. It does not explain what distinguishes fintech, fintech_partial and generalist.

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 (list approved venture-fund closes) and enumerates the returned fields: fund, manager, close_type, date, amount, currency, source. It distinguishes itself from search_funds by emphasizing approved closes and a newest-first ordering, so an agent can tell what it returns without opening the schema.

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?

"Without close_type only first, interim and final closes are listed" gives concrete usage context for the default behavior, and "Unknown arguments are rejected" sets a constraint. However, it never names a sibling alternative (e.g. search_funds) or states when to prefer this over search_funds, so exclusions are only implicit.

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