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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the data-source scope (SVTR database, name/alias matching); it says nothing about result ordering, matching behavior (fuzzy vs exact), or empty-result handling.

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?

The lead statement is front-loaded and short, with the purpose stated in the first clause. However, the content is fully duplicated across Chinese and English, so half the tokens convey no new information for an English-reading agent.

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 carries some burden for describing the return shape, and it does not say what a result contains (name, alias, type, identifiers) or how matches are ranked. For a simple search tool with full schema coverage and read-only annotations, this is adequate but with a clear gap.

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 four parameters are already documented in the schema, including the type and lang enums and the limit bounds. The examples in the description add only marginal meaning beyond that baseline.

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?

The description names a specific verb (search) and resource (companies and investors) and scopes it to the SVTR AI Venture Database, with concrete example queries ("Anthropic", "a16z"). It does not explicitly contrast itself with get_organization_profile, but the search-vs-fetch distinction is inferable from the names.

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 is only implied: the "by name or alias" phrasing and the examples suggest this is a lookup-entry-point tool, but there is no statement of when to prefer it over get_organization_profile or when not to use it. No alternatives or prerequisites are named.

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