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 useful non-annotation context about cost, authentication, and return type: '$0.05; API key required' and 'Returns canonical person IDs'.

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 short and front-loaded, starting with the tool's domain and purpose. The cost/auth note is compact. It is efficient, though the sentence fragments make it slightly less polished than a maximally structured definition.

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?

Annotations cover safety and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, for a tool with 5 optional filter parameters and zero schema descriptions, the description is only partially complete: it gives purpose and one use case but leaves parameter usage largely unexplained.

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?

With 5 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but largely does not. It hints at concepts like 'sector and stage fit', 'pipeline', and 'existing graph intro paths', but never explains view, status, strength, or how the filters map to parameters or enums.

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 identifies a specific domain and output: 'Structured fundraising CRM' returning 'canonical person IDs', with 'Use for who to approach for a round.' This is clear but does not explicitly differentiate from the large set of get_* sibling tools beyond the fundraising framing.

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?

It gives a clear use context: 'Use for who to approach for a round.' It does not mention when not to use it or point to alternative tools, so it falls short of the 5-level routing guidance.

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