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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and non-destructive, so the trailing 'Read-only.' adds little. The genuinely useful addition is the disclosed empty-state behavior and the instruction not to fabricate a plan — a behavioral trait annotations cannot express.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the two follow-up sentences are short and high-value. The long enumeration of returned fields is somewhat wasteful given a full output schema exists, but it is readable and not padded with 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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't describe return shapes, and it correctly focuses on scope and the empty-state caveat. Nothing critical for correct invocation is missing for a single-parameter read tool.

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?

Single companyId parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema carries parameter meaning entirely. Baseline 3 applies since the description adds no constraint, format, or scoping detail about companyId.

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 and resource ('Returns the company's raise plan') and enumerates its contents, making clear this is the read side of the raise-plan resource. It does not name the counterpart fundraising_update_raise_plan, so an agent must infer the read/write split from the verb alone.

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 a concrete decision rule for the empty case ('Absent when no raise is set up — say that rather than inventing a plan'), which is exactly the fork an agent will hit. It stops short of explicit when-to-use guidance against siblings like fundraising_get_raise_governance or fundraising_update_raise_plan.

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