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

Goes beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations by stating the generation is deterministic and performs no schema modification, and by disclosing that the document is delivered in 'artifacts' while the result carries the included-section list. Useful context, though it says nothing about size limits, latency, or failure modes for very large projects.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and scope before the behavioral and usage clauses. The long enumeration of assembled sections is dense but each item conveys what triggers inclusion, so it earns its space; only the em-dash catalogue slightly strains readability.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the return shape (artifact delivery plus included-sections list) and the conditional-section behavior. Combined with annotations covering safety, an agent has everything needed to call this 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% with only two parameters, and the schema already documents includeDiagrams and expectedProjectId thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what is structured, so the baseline of 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?

Specific verb (Generates) plus a named resource (FUNDRAISING PACKAGE) with an explicit definition of what the artifact contains. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling exporters like export_arch_diagram, export_data_model and export_ddl by being the whole-project investor document rather than a single view.

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?

Gives concrete triggering contexts — preparing a fundraise, a pitch, a board deck, or a request for 'the complete package' — which is stronger than most siblings. It does not, however, name an explicit alternative or a when-not condition (e.g. when to prefer export_data_model instead).

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