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

Annotations already cover read-only/safe/openWorld, and the description still adds real behavioral detail beyond them: routes through an over-capped connector come back flagged at-capacity rather than proposed, and excluded people are omitted entirely. The closing 'read-only: it contacts nobody' largely restates the annotations, but the at-capacity and exclusion semantics are substantive additions.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed immediately by the two non-obvious behavioral cases. No filler despite the slightly conversational phrasing about ranking rationale.

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, yet the description still usefully characterizes the payload shape (routes with evidence, load, ranking reason) and the flag semantics, which is the right emphasis for a 2-parameter read tool. The only meaningful gap is routing guidance against the many sibling fundraising network tools.

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 coverage is nominally 100%, but both parameters are opaque UUID wrappers ('UUID value wrapper'), so the schema does little real work. The description clarifies only that the target is 'one investor' (the relationshipId) and implies the company scope; it says nothing about what companyId materially selects or whether both must belong together.

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+resource: ranked routes (warm-intro paths) to one investor, including per-hop evidence, connector load, and ranking rationale. That is far more informative than the bare name and distinguishes it from graph/reachability siblings, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 the output description (you call it when you want intros to a specific investor), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the nearby alternatives such as fundraising_get_reachability or fundraising_get_network_graph that an agent could confuse it with.

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