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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it enumerates exclusions (rate decisions, price targets, bond issues, etc.) and states that a rejected count is returned alongside the rows. This gives the agent useful insight beyond a simple list operation.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and uses a clear structure with a short paragraph and bullet-style list of exclusions. The 'Responses' section is somewhat redundant but not bloated enough to hurt readability.

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?

The filtering behavior and the returned rejected count are well covered, and the parameters are mostly self-explanatory from the schema. However, the exact meaning of 'current window' is undefined, there is no output schema, and no details about pagination or response structure beyond a 200 JSON response.

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 schema already describes three of the four parameters with meaningful text, and the description adds little parameter-level detail beyond that. The undocumented 'limit' parameter is still understandable from its name, type, and min/max constraints.

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 tool returns genuine funded rounds in the current window with their sources. It uses a specific noun phrase and scope, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like agent_signal_exposure.

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 description implies use when funded-round signals for the current window are needed and notes what is already filtered out. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance or references to alternative sibling tools.

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