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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating it returns 'every capital raise on record,' implying completeness, and that it matches the paid page's data. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 sentences with zero waste. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and data fields; the second provides a useful equivalence reference. No redundant or filler content.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with annotations and a fully described schema, the description is complete. It specifies the output fields, scope, and equivalence, so an agent can call it correctly without missing information. No output schema exists, but the description adequately explains the return content.

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% and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., 'One ASX ticker code... no batch form'). Since the schema fully documents the only parameter, the baseline of 3 applies; the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 states a specific verb ('get') and resource ('raise history') with detailed fields (date, type, amount, issue price, shares issued, brokers, purpose) and scope (one ASX company). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_cash_runway or get_dilution_snapshot, which target different financial metrics.

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 description implies usage for retrieving raise history but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. The sibling tools are not referenced. The only contextual note is 'Identical to the paid page's raise history,' which provides no comparative guidance. Usage is inferred from the tool name and description.

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