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

The description adds 'It returns information only and sends nothing,' which goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by ruling out side effects like sending an email or triggering an outreach action. This is valuable context not present in annotations alone.

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 two sentences, front-loading the key result and then giving usage guidance. Every sentence contributes meaning, with no filler or repeated schema information.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it states what is returned, who should use it, example scenarios, and confirms no side effects. No critical information is missing for correct invocation.

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%, and the single optional parameter 'from' is already described in the schema as the company or platform the person represents. The description reinforces this through examples like logistics and investor, but does not add substantial new meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific action ('Return') and names the exact resource returned: Gemalli's partnership/investment terms and the founder's direct contact. It also clarifies who the tool is for, which distinguishes it from buyer-facing tools like request_quote.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: when the person represents a company that would work with a trade platform rather than buy on it, with concrete examples. It implies a buyer scenario should use a different tool, but does not name an alternative explicitly.

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