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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the substantive content of the return (ticket range, mandate, framework, routing). It is silent on format, freshness, and whether the data is static, but for a zero-parameter read tool the key behavioral trait — what comes back — is covered.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler or repetition. Every clause adds a distinct content category.

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 parameterless lookup with no annotations or output schema, the description gives enough for an agent to know what it will receive. It falls slightly short on vague terms like 'evaluation framework' and 'direct pitch routing', which are not unpacked, and on return format.

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?

The tool takes no parameters at all (0 params, empty object schema), so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Returns') and a specific resource ('Mode VC's investment parameters'), then enumerates the payload: ticket sizes, geographic mandate, evaluation framework, pitch routing. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like get_investor_details, which is the only thing keeping it out of 5 territory.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no named alternative. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the enumerated fund-specific content, which an agent can infer but must do so on its own.

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