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

Annotations are minimal (openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false) and do not include readOnlyHint, so the description must convey behavioral traits. The description adds 'draft' which indicates the agreement is not finalized, but it does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, or the fact that it is a mutation (obvious from the name). The 'non-SAFE' claim is also inconsistent with the schema's allowed types, adding confusion rather than clarity.

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 description is a single sentence with no waste, but it is severely under-specified. While concise in word count, it omits essential context that an agent needs, making it an example of under-specification rather than effective conciseness. There is no front-loading of critical information beyond a generic statement.

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?

For a tool with 8 parameters, nested objects, and an output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain the creation workflow, what constitutes a 'draft,' when to use it (e.g., during a funding round), or how it relates to sibling tools like cap_table_create_cap_table_round. The output schema exists but does not cover usage context. This is inadequate for an agent to make informed decisions.

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 only 38%, with most parameters (name, type, granteeName, sourceS3Uri, progressTotal, stakeholderId) lacking descriptions in the schema. The tool description provides no information about these parameters, failing to compensate for the low coverage. It does not explain the meaning of 'draft,' how parameters interact, or what values are expected, leaving the agent with no additional semantic guidance.

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 clearly states the verb (creates) and resource (cap table agreement), and specifies it creates a 'draft non-SAFE agreement.' However, the qualifier 'non-SAFE' is potentially misleading because the input schema includes 'CAP_TABLE_AGREEMENT_TYPE_SAFE' among its enum values, creating ambiguity about whether this tool can create SAFE agreements. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling create tools (e.g., cap_table_create_cap_table_round), but the resource type is unique.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or when to prefer cap_table_update_cap_table_agreement or other create tools. The context is entirely absent, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and schema alone.

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