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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing what comes back (slug, profile link, review rating, and listed facts) and revealing a behavioral quirk — that funders without a listed max deal are excluded — which is easy to miss.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the searchable scope before the filter and return-value enumeration. The second sentence is dense but each clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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 the burden of describing results and does so thoroughly, and with six optional parameters fully documented in-schema the description is nearly self-sufficient. Only ordering/pagination behavior and the relationship to get_funder are left unstated.

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 the schema already documents every parameter including the payments enum and the min_max_deal exclusion behavior. The description restates the same semantics (financing type examples, payments values) without adding syntax, format, or combination rules 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 (Search) and a precisely scoped resource (FundingTracker's public directory of MCA and business financing providers), enumerating the searchable fields and filters. An agent can tell this is a discovery/listing tool rather than a single-record lookup, though it never names the sibling get_funder as the drill-down alternative.

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 the filter list — search when you need to narrow the directory — and the schema notes that omitting 'query' lists the whole directory. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer get_funder, request_funder_listing, or which filter combination suits which intent.

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