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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and closed-world, so safety needs no restating. The description adds genuinely non-structured behavior: only 'approved' rounds are returned, ordering is newest-first, and pagination is keyset-based via returned next_cursor fields. It still omits the default page size and whether results can be empty for narrow filters.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and ordering, followed by the pagination contract. No filler, though the cursor sentence could be tightened by naming the exact continuation call.

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 parameters, no output schema and no required fields, the description does well to explain the pagination return contract. It remains thin on what a row contains and on default limit behavior, which matters since there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 includes enums and formats, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds one useful link the schema lacks — that after_date and after_id are populated from the response's next_cursor fields — but says nothing about filter combinations or interactions (e.g. after_date vs from).

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 and scope: 'Approved funding rounds, newest first' — the agent knows it's a filtered list of approved rounds ordered by recency. It doesn't name a sibling in the description body (the sibling routing for fund closes lives in the schema's category parameter), so differentiation is clear but not stated here.

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?

'with optional filters' implies this is the general-purpose browse tool, and the second sentence gives concrete instructions for paginating. However, it never says when to prefer this over siblings such as largest_rounds, list_raising, or list_fund_closes, so the agent must infer from names.

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