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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but only says profiles are 'public'. It does not disclose auth requirements, rate limits, pagination tied to max_results, or whether results are scraped/live. This is a thin disclosure for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler, and the input-mode guidance follows immediately after the purpose statement. Efficiently sized for the content provided.

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?

For a 4-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not describe the return shape, paging, or the failure mode when keywords match nothing, leaving gaps an agent must guess at.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate. It maps to two of the four parameters (urls, search_keywords) and implies the company/investor distinction of the kind enum, but never explains max_results or the default paging behavior.

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 names the specific resource (public PitchBook profiles) and its scope (private companies or investors), which lets an agent distinguish it from the Crunchbase siblings. It lacks an explicit verb like 'fetch/retrieve', but the intent is unambiguous.

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?

"Give profile URLs, or keywords to search PitchBook first" clearly lays out the two input modes and their ordering (search first, then fetch). It stops short of stating when to prefer this over lookup_crunchbase_companies or search_crunchbase, so no alternatives are given.

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