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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), so the description's job is to add model-level context, which it does: it discloses that this is the whole-fund convention and that outcomes include net-of-fee drag. It stops short of stating anything about defaults actually applied (e.g., that catch_up defaults to full and hurdle to 8%), which would materially change results.

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?

One dense, front-loaded sentence that packs the full waterfall sequence, followed by a link to an interactive version. No filler, though the URL is of marginal use to an agent invoking the tool.

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 twelve parameters and no output schema, the agent needs some sense of the return shape; the description names the headline figures (LP net multiple, gross-to-net drag) but not the structure of the response. It also doesn't explain the mode switch's effect on which inputs become relevant, which is the main invocation risk here.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all twelve parameters, including the mode enum and step-down fields, are already documented in structured data. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names the specific resource and model: a European (whole-fund) distribution waterfall, enumerating its stages (fees, return of capital, hurdle, GP catch-up, carry split) and its outputs (LP net multiple, gross-to-net drag). That clearly separates it from metric-only siblings like moic, irr, or tvpi_dpi, even without naming them.

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 'European (whole-fund)' qualifier implicitly tells the agent this is the whole-fund waterfall rather than a deal-by-deal one, which is a real scoping signal. But there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of which sibling to pick for a plain multiple (moic) or an IRR, and no prerequisites noted.

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