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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's job is to add context — and it does, by detailing the response payload shape since no output schema exists. It omits not-found/invalid-id behavior and any note on response size or truncation.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then a tight enumeration of returned sections. Given there is no output schema, every clause here earns its place; nothing is repetitive.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does so densely and accurately, including nested items like per-year FilingIDs and master/feeder relationships. Only error/failure semantics are left unaddressed, which is a minor gap for a read-only lookup.

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% for the single required parameter, and the schema itself explains that fund_id can be an id from get_firm/search or a corridome.com address. The description adds no further meaning about the identifier format, so the 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?

The description names a specific verb+resource ('One private fund from the Corridome register') and enumerates the entity's facets: type, adviser, gross assets, owners, yearly assets, Form D offerings, master/feeder funds. The singular framing implicitly distinguishes it from list_funds and search, but it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: fetch a single fund when you have its id. The indirect hint that the id comes 'from get_firm or search' is only present in the schema, not the description, and there is no explicit when-not or alternative routing (e.g., use list_funds for a set of funds).

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