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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write/safe profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses that the assistant resolves fund and commitments, and that nothing is sent until the user confirms — a material safety behavior for an outbound-signature action.

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, the action stated first and the confirmation safeguard second, with no filler. Slightly efficient rather than exemplary, but every clause carries information.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key agent-facing questions: what it sends, to whom, and that a confirmation gate precedes any dispatch. It leaves unspecified what the call returns or whether dispatch is asynchronous, which a caller would need to know.

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 team, request and timeZone are already fully documented by the schema; the description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail for any of them. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does all the work.

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: starting the send of subscription agreements for signature to a fund's investors. That is clearly distinguishable from siblings like capital_company_send_capital_calls or capital_company_invite_investors by the artifact involved, though the description never names an alternative to route against.

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?

Usage context is implied by 'for signature to investors of one of the user's funds' and by the confirmation step, but there is no explicit statement of when to pick this over send_capital_calls or invite_investors, nor any precondition (e.g. commitments must exist) beyond the internal resolution step.

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