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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. Beyond that, the description adds useful behavioral context by stating that the result includes sections, documents, provenance, and downloadability, and reinforces the read-only 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 tight sentences with the return content front-loaded and the diligence usage guidance following. 'Read-only' briefly reinforces annotations without wasting space.

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 the description need not explain return values in depth. The annotations cover safety traits, the only parameter is fully described in the schema, and the description provides enough context for correct use in diligence workflows.

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?

There is only one parameter, companyId, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, which is acceptable at baseline 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('the company's data room') and enumerates the returned structure: sections, documents, provenance, and downloadability. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as fundraising_set_data_room_items and fundraising_get_list_data_room_grants.

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 to 'Read this to answer a diligence request' and warns not to offer the nearest alternative when the room cannot cover an ask. It gives clear usage context, though it does not name sibling alternatives for access/grant management or item updates.

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