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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it says nothing about result ordering, match behavior (fuzzy vs exact), pagination beyond the schema's limit, or that this is a read-only lookup. It discloses corpus size and provenance, which is useful context but not runtime behavior.

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 tightly written sentences with the coverage scope front-loaded and the filterable dimensions second. No filler, no repetition of the title.

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 five-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description conveys the corpus and filter axes but omits what a result actually contains and how results are ordered or truncated. Adequate to call the tool, but not complete.

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 (limit, query, stage, sector, location) is already documented with examples and an enum, setting the baseline at 3. The description only restates the filterable dimensions and does not clarify, for example, that query matches firm OR partner name simultaneously, nor anything about limit semantics.

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 (search) and a precise resource (institutional VC firms and partners) and quantifies coverage (3,650+ firms, 13,000+ partners from the Mode VC Investor Atlas). It never names the sibling get_investor_details, so an agent must infer that this tool searches while that one retrieves details.

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 when the tool is useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives such as get_investor_details for a known firm or get_mode_vc_thesis_and_criteria for thesis data.

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