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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Look up' implies a read-only operation and 'Free' signals no cost, but it does not clarify what happens when no recent raise is found, what 'recently' means, or what the verified record contains.

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 short and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first. The standalone 'Free.' is slightly awkward but still communicates useful context without padding.

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 simple single-parameter lookup tool, the description is mostly adequate, but there is no output schema and the description barely characterizes the return value ('the verified record'). Missing details like 'no result' behavior and timeframe reduce completeness.

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 input schema already fully documents the single parameter with 'Company name or domain' and length constraints, so the description adds little beyond the schema. The schema coverage is 100%, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('look up'), the specific resource (a company), and the scope ('recently raised funding'). The phrase 'specific company' helps distinguish it from sibling tools like recent_raises, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 'specific company' implies this tool is for single-company lookups rather than batch or aggregate queries, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus recent_raises or deal_stats, nor does it mention exclusions.

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