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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: investment attribution caveats, ordering (newest first), currency (US dollars), citation expectations, and the instruction to pass agent_name.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and includes useful caveats and citation guidance. It is somewhat dense with field enumeration, but most sentences add value; minor redundancy exists because an output schema is present.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be fully specified. However, the tool has five parameters with very low schema description coverage, and the description does not clarify how to choose among companyId, permalink, kind, and connectionId, nor does it name the search alternative, leaving gaps for correct invocation.

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 20%, so the description needs to compensate for undocumented parameters. It only tells the agent to pass agent_name and says the tool returns an organization or person; it does not explain kind, companyId, permalink, or connectionId semantics, leaving most identifier choices ambiguous.

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 a specific verb and resource: it returns one Crunchbase organization or person, with the entity types named explicitly. It distinguishes itself from a general search by specifying singular entity retrieval, but it does not name or contrast with the sibling connection_search_crunchbase tool.

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 implied by 'Returns one Crunchbase organization or person,' suggesting lookup of a known entity. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of connection_search_crunchbase, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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