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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description goes further by specifying no status change, no snapshot writes, and that it never finalizes the round. This adds concrete behavioral context beyond the annotations, fully disclosing the non-persistent nature.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the most critical behavioral difference (does not persist), and ends with the alternative. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the annotations (readOnly, non-destructive), an output schema, and a clear description of behavior and usage, the context is sufficient for correct tool selection. Optional financial parameters are self-named and the absence of parameter explanations is offset by their intuitive names.

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?

The description provides no information about the parameters. Schema description coverage is only 40% (only the UUID wrappers for roundId and companyId have descriptions), leaving newMoneyRaise, preMoneyValuation, and targetOptionPoolPct without any explanatory text in either schema or description. The agent must infer their purpose from names alone.

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 tool runs the same engine as CloseCapTableRound but does not persist or close anything, giving a specific verb+resource+scope. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling CloseCapTableRound, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly says this is for 'preview', 'what-if', or 'estimate the close', and directs users to CloseCapTableRound for actual close/finalize. This provides both clear when-to-use and the alternative, leaving no ambiguity.

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