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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: the never-target-list filtering and the fact that no proposal state is created. It stops short of describing pagination or limit behavior, so it is not fully complete.

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 what the tool returns, followed by the exclusion and the mutation boundary. No 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?

The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers semantics, exclusions, and mutation boundaries; the only notable gap is guidance on the companyId scope and limit parameter.

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 50%, with companyId's description limited to a generic 'UUID value wrapper' and limit undocumented. The description never mentions companyId scoping or limit/pagination, so it does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 the specific resource (founders in the network whose companies raised from VC firms) and its semantics: each founder is a warm route to the backing firms. It also clearly states an exclusion (never-target list) and differentiates itself from fundraising_propose_change, which is named directly.

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?

Explicitly says 'This proposes nothing; a target becomes one through fundraising_propose_change,' naming the alternative and the condition that selects it. The never-target exclusion adds an additional when-not boundary.

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