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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: pinned ventures are surfaced first (result ordering), archived rows are omitted by default, and archived ventures are read-only. The 'they're read-only' clause partly restates readOnlyHint, keeping it out of the top band.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the result shape (feature counts), ordering (pinned first), and filtering default front-loaded in that order. Every clause earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry return-shape burden, and it does reasonably: it discloses the per-venture feature counts and ordering. It does not mention pagination, total counts, or result-size limits, which is the one remaining gap for a list tool.

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?

With 100% schema coverage and a single parameter, the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema's terse 'Also list archived ventures' — it explains the default (excluded), and that included archived ventures are read-only. That is decision-relevant context the schema does not carry.

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 ('The user's ventures (business ideas)') and even clarifies the domain term 'ventures' for an agent that might not know the product vocabulary. It also previews the payload's key attribute (feature readiness counts), which distinguishes it from feature-oriented siblings like list_features. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with any sibling.

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?

The description tells the agent the default scope (archived excluded) and the condition that widens it (include_archived=true), which is clear usage context. It never says when to reach for this tool versus list_features or the other siblings, so guidance is implied rather than stated.

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