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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context: output is aggregated only with no row-level data, which sets expectations about granularity and result shape.

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?

Bilingual duplication means the same content is stated twice, adding bulk. However, each version is front-loaded and the key constraint (aggregates only) appears early, so the structure is sound despite the redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry return-value expectations — and it does, listing totals, counts, median, Top 10 and stage breakdown. Combined with the 'no row-level data' note, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though response pagination or empty-result behavior is unaddressed.

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 all three parameters (including lang default and year range) are already documented in the schema. The description's 'omit sector for Top 10' restates the schema's own note rather than adding syntax or semantics beyond it — 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 and resource (aggregated funding landscape statistics) and enumerates the exact outputs — totals, deal counts, median, cross-sector Top 10, or per-sector stage distribution. The '仅聚合数字，无行级数据' note cleanly distinguishes it from row-level siblings like get_recent_funding_events.

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?

Explicitly describes the two usage modes — omit `sector` for the cross-sector Top 10, supply it for a single-sector stage breakdown — and clarifies that only aggregates are returned, implying row-level needs should go elsewhere. It never names the alternative sibling, so the routing guidance is contextual rather than explicit.

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