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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the entire behavioral burden. It reveals nothing about pagination limits, the hard 20-row cap, the 1000 offset ceiling, matching semantics (e.g. prefix vs fuzzy), or result ordering — all critical for a search tool, though some of this is only in the schema.

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 compact sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It wastes nothing, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing usage and behavioral detail.

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 read-only search tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it conveys scope and returned dimensions. It lacks sibling differentiation and any behavioral/operational context, which is the main gap.

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 the schema already documents all 9 parameters, including the limit cap and offset constraint. The description lists field names that overlap with the filters but adds no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 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 (检索) and resource (投融资事件), and enumerates the returned fields (轮次、金额、领投方、跟投方、时间) plus the source table and record count. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like search_investors (which sounds adjacent) or search_deals, leaving some ambiguity about which sibling covers which data.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus search_investors or search_deals, no stated prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description only says what data is covered, leaving the agent to infer selection.

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