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

The annotations already declare a safe read-only, idempotent operation, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful behavior beyond annotations by defining confirmed/probable/possible tiers, explaining that weak matches are hidden by default, and noting the 'dataset not available yet' state.

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 front-loaded and compact: three sentences cover the return contents, match-tier semantics, and dataset availability without wasted words. Every sentence contributes operational meaning.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description sufficiently enumerates what is returned and explains the key result-quality distinction. Annotations cover the safety profile, so nothing critical 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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics for include_weak_matches by explaining which tiers are hidden and why. It also reinforces that firm is an Atlas slug or name, though the schema already documents that example.

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+resource: it returns SEC Form ADV records, Form D filings, and an activity roll-up for a firm in the Mode VC Investor Atlas. This is clearly distinguishable from sibling calculation and investor-search tools because it targets filings linked to a firm.

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 establishes the usage context clearly: the firm must be in the Mode VC Investor Atlas. It also explains that weak matches are hidden unless include_weak_matches is true, though it does not explicitly compare against alternatives such as get_investor_details or get_new_raises.

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