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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: results are ordered by profile completeness, narrowed to one sector or one check size, and each result carries login, investment focus, check sizes, pinned portfolio companies, and pitch status. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: the first states the core purpose and ordering, the second summarizes the payload and relationship to get_investor, and the third routes to the alternative tool. Every sentence earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 list tool with four optional parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it covers scope, filtering, ordering, result contents, and the sibling for targeted lookup. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly and to know what the response will generally contain.

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 baseline is 3; the schema already documents page, sector, per_page, and check_size. The description adds the semantic note that narrowing is to one sector or one check size, which is not stated in the schema. It doesn't need to repeat parameter syntax because the schema already does.

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 names a specific resource (Signed's public angel investor directory) and a specific action (browse), and adds concrete details: public profiles, ordering by completeness, and optional filters. It explicitly distinguishes itself from search_investors in the final sentence, so an agent can select it correctly without ambiguity.

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 last sentence gives an explicit routing rule: use search_investors when you have a name or keyword. The body clarifies that this tool is for browsing the directory without a specific target and can be narrowed by sector or check size, which is clear when-to-use context.

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