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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false), so the description's real contribution is behavioral: results are restricted to 'Approved' rounds, ordered newest-first, and paged via a keyset cursor. Naming the returned next_cursor fields (after_date, after_id) is meaningful, since there is no output schema. No rate limits or page-size behavior beyond the schema's limit are mentioned.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the key facts (scope, ordering, pagination) are front-loaded ahead of the cursor instruction.

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 11 optional params, no output schema, and full schema coverage, the description supplies the missing pieces an agent needs: the 'Approved' scope, sort order, and how to fetch subsequent pages. It does not cover what a row contains, but the absence of an output schema plus the cursor hint keeps this adequate rather than deficient.

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% and already documents all 11 filters, including the cursor pair. The description adds only the framing that after_date/after_id are pagination cursors returned by the API, without expanding on any other parameter's 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Approved funding rounds') plus ordering ('newest first') and the capability set ('optional filters and keyset pagination'). An agent knows it is a filtered list of funding rounds, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like largest_rounds or funding_summary, which also surface round data.

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 makes clear this is the general-purpose filtered listing and explains how to paginate, which implies its usage context. However it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not or routing guidance against close alternatives such as largest_rounds and funding_summary, leaving selection to inference.

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