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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description's added value is the workflow: the assistant fills gaps and requires user confirmation before creation. That is meaningful non-obvious behavior beyond the annotations, though no mention of failure, permissions, or what happens on confirmation.

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 sentence plus a sentence on the interactive flow. Front-loaded with the action and resource, no filler. Slightly overloaded but coherent.

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 non-mutating-in-effect create-starter with no output schema, the description covers artifact types, captured fields, and the confirmation gate. Lacks detail on what the tool returns or how the conversation continues, but sufficient to invoke correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents request, timeZone, and the conditional team parameter. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., that `request` carries the user's own words), so 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 verb (create) and resource (fund), and distinguishes the artifact types it handles — SPV or blind pool — with the fields it captures. An agent can separate this from capital_company_update_fund and the commitment siblings without opening 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?

Implies the tool kicks off a multi-step create flow, but gives no explicit when-to-use versus siblings like capital_company_ask or capital_company_update_fund. Usage is inferable from the flow description rather than stated as a routing rule.

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