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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds useful context: sign-in is required, the deals are presented in the partner's own words and labelled as the partner's terms, and founders without a portfolio receive nothing.

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 definition is front-loaded with eligibility and then explains the return, with no filler sentences. It is slightly dense and could be tightened, but every sentence carries useful 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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers eligibility, authentication, what is returned, provenance labeling, and the empty-portfolio case. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter information that need compensating for, and the description correctly does not invent any parameter 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: returns a portfolio's negotiated deals and the public programs it points to. It also distinguishes the tool by eligibility: only founders who joined via a venture firm's or studio's invite link, which separates it from the admin sibling.

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 clearly states the condition for use (joined via invite link) and the negative case (no portfolio means no deals), plus the sign-in prerequisite. It does not explicitly name or compare against partner_perks_admin, so the alternative routing is left implicit.

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