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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so 'Read-only' adds nothing. The genuinely useful addition is the disclosure that unroutable targets retain their fit score and are surfaced as 'no known path', which shapes interpretation of the result; beyond that, nothing is said about how reachability is computed or what a 'route' consists of.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core answer. The middle clause ('that half of the answer is the more useful one...') is a bit editorial but does convey prioritization rather than padding.

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?

Return shape is covered by an output schema and safety by annotations, so the remaining burden is domain framing, which is thin: no mention of companyId, of which target set is evaluated, or of the sibling tool for per-target path exploration. Adequate but leaves real ambiguity for a fundraising agent.

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?

Only one nested parameter (companyId) with 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description never mentions the company scope or the UUID wrapper, but the schema already documents it adequately.

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 concrete outcome: which targets the founder can reach and which they cannot. However, it never says what 'targets' are scoped to (raise-plan targets? network targets?) and does not distinguish itself from the very similar sibling fundraising_get_paths_to_target.

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 hints at usage ('when deciding where to spend a week'), giving an informal planning context, but offers no explicit when-to-use/when-not rule and never names an alternative tool such as get_paths_to_target for drilling into a specific route.

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