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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, and openWorldHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those: figures reflect the live catalogue at the time of the call, and the result set contains no platform names. This is useful but not exhaustive; however, with strong annotations and an output schema, the additional disclosure is adequate.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the aggregate purpose and metrics, the second explains filtering, the third gives usage and exclusion guidance, and the final sentence notes data freshness. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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 tool with six optional parameters, a full output schema, complete parameter documentation, and safety annotations, the description leaves no critical gap. It covers what the tool aggregates, how to filter, when to use it, when not to use it, the alternative tool, and data freshness.

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%, and each parameter already has a rich description with enums and common-value counts. The description adds a useful high-level instruction to omit filters for the whole market, but it does not need to repeat parameter details. This is the baseline 3 for a fully self-documenting schema.

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 verb and resource: it aggregates figures for a slice of the crowdfunding market and enumerates exactly what metrics are returned (platform counts, regulation, returns, investment minimums, funding volumes, etc.). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from search_platforms by stating that it returns no platform names, so an agent can tell them apart immediately.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'how big / how regulated / what is typical' questions. It also gives an explicit when-not-to-use and names the alternative: 'Do NOT use it to name platforms — search_platforms does that.' It further instructs that all filters can be omitted for the whole market.

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