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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by describing the return shape (a short snippet for each text match) and confirming the search span is the authenticated user's account, but it says nothing about result ordering, truncation, or how matches across types are ranked/merged. Annotations carry most of the weight, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentences, zero filler. The primary scope statement comes first and the sibling-routing rule is second, so the most decision-relevant 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must at least convey what comes back, and it does (a short snippet per text match across the named entity types). It covers scope and the key alternative, but leaves result ordering and any aggregation/truncation behavior unspecified for a multi-type search.

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 q, limit (default 10, max 25) and types are already documented in the schema itself. The description only restates the entity categories and the updates/files distinction, which the schema also conveys, adding no syntax or format detail beyond it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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) plus the exact resource set (portfolio companies, pipeline pitches, people, notes, documents) and the scope of the authenticated user's account in one call. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling search_companies, so an agent can pick between them without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative (search_companies) and the condition that should route you there: when you only need to resolve a company name to a slug. That is a concrete when-to-use-this-vs-that rule rather than an implied one.

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