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

Although annotations already establish read-only and non-destructive behavior, the description adds substantial behavioral detail: the eight ordered sections, exact citation parity, prohibition on private evidence, required adjacent research artifacts, and a PASS release review. It also states the gating consequence that a failing brief cannot be approved.

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 check and then adds the key gating consequence. The long first sentence is dense but every clause maps to a validation rule, and the two short follow-up sentences improve clarity without excessive length.

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?

This is a complex validation tool, but the description covers the main contract checks, required stored artifacts, release-review condition, and approval consequence. An output schema exists, so return-value details need not be explained. Minor gaps remain around invocation context and parameter meanings, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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 100%, so the schema is the primary source for parameter definitions. The description only indirectly implies that artifactId refers to the investor brief and mentions 'this version,' but it does not add meaningful semantics for companyId. With high coverage, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: it checks an investor brief against the research package contract. It also lists concrete validation criteria, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as artifact retrieval or approval tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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 this is a pre-approval validation step by saying a failing brief cannot be approved and that a release review must be stored after the current version. However, it does not explicitly state when to call this tool instead of siblings like fundraising_approve_artifact or fundraising_get_artifact, so usage is only implied.

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