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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/destructiveHint, so the bar is lower. The description adds real context beyond them: results come via the company's connected key, each match returns permalink/name/one-line description, and duplicate names are distinct candidates requiring disambiguation.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and return shape, then the disambiguation rule and handoff. The trailing 'Read-only.' is redundant with readOnlyHint=true but only mildly wasteful; overall it is tight and well ordered.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out, and the description nonetheless covers them. But with 6 params, an enum, a nested object, and near-zero schema coverage, the missing parameter guidance (kind especially) leaves an agent guessing on how to narrow or scope the search.

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 17%, so the description must compensate, yet it mentions only name ('query') and agent_name. It never explains the kind enum (organization vs person), maxResults, companyId, or the connectionId wrapper — the most decision-relevant parameters are left undocumented.

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 ('Finds'), resource ('organizations and people on Crunchbase'), and the matching criterion ('by name'), plus the return fields. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling connection_get_crunchbase_entity by positioning that tool as the follow-up after obtaining a permalink.

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?

Gives clear guidance on how to act on ambiguous results ('two matches with one name are two candidates... pick by description') and the explicit handoff to connection_get_crunchbase_entity. It does not address when to prefer this over other search tools such as connection_search_exa or connection_search_parallel, so it falls short of full alternative routing.

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