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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so repeating 'Read-only' adds little. The description adds useful domain context by noting linked details such as the cap-table stakeholder at Committed, but it does not explain not-found behavior, authorization constraints, or other operational traits.

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 front-loaded with the core action and is only one substantive sentence plus a short safety note. It is efficient, though the field enumeration repeats some return information likely covered by the output schema and 'Read-only' duplicates the annotations.

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?

Given the one-parameter read operation, existing annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete enough: it states the identifier-based lookup and summarizes the returned relationship data. It could be strengthened with a brief note on error behavior or clarification against related relationship-profile tools, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 one required parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents relationshipId. The description says the lookup is 'by id' but does not add UUID formatting, wrapper semantics, or other meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 and resource ('Returns one relationship by id') and enumerates the returned data surface, including person, firm, stage, signal, tier, fit score, citations, connector, terms, and linked cap-table stakeholder. The singular 'by id' scope distinguishes it from list-oriented siblings such as fundraising_get_list_relationships.

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?

The description implies usage by saying it returns 'one relationship by id' and is 'Read-only,' which suggests it is for fetching a known single relationship rather than listing or mutating. However, it does not explicitly name when to choose it over siblings like fundraising_get_list_relationships, fundraising_get_relationship_memory, or fundraising_update_relationship.

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