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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and openWorld=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful framing beyond the annotations by naming the backing dataset and its size, but says nothing about result ordering, pagination across the 3,650+ corpus, or what fields come back.

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, zero filler, with the corpus scope front-loaded and the filter dimensions following. Every clause earns its place.

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 read-only search tool with full schema coverage, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description gives the agent enough to call it correctly. The only mild gap is absence of any hint about result volume, ranking, or pagination behavior.

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%, so every parameter including enums and the limit cap is already documented. The description's list of filter dimensions largely restates the schema, adding only the implicit note that 'query' spans both firm names and partner names. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the weight.

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?

Specific verb (Search) plus concrete resource (institutional VC firms and partners) with a quantified corpus (3,650+ firms, 13,000+ partners) and named source (Mode VC Investor Atlas). It is clear what the tool returns, though it never contrasts itself with siblings like get_investor_details or search_charts.

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 phrase 'Filter by firm name, partner name, sector, stage, or geography' implies how to narrow results, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisite, and no pointer to the sibling that returns full detail for a single firm (get_investor_details). Usage is inferable but not guided.

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