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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it wraps an external dataset, returns recent rounds, and has a max days_back of ~180. It does not disclose pagination, rate limits, or behavior on empty results, but provides adequate extra context beyond 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?

The description is well-structured with a summary line, wrapper info, return fields, and an args list. It is slightly verbose but not excessive, clearly presenting all necessary information in a readable format.

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?

With three simple parameters, no output schema, and moderate annotations, the description covers purpose, parameters, and basic behavior. It mentions return fields but does not detail the exact output structure (e.g., whether it's a list or paginated). Overall, it is fairly complete for the tool's complexity.

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 0%, so the description carries full responsibility for parameter explanations. It clearly describes 'stage' and 'sector' as optional filters with examples, and 'days_back' with default and max values, adding significant meaning beyond the raw 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 clearly states the tool tracks recent startup funding announcements with filtering by stage and sector. It specifies the data sources (Crunchbase News, TechCrunch, sector press) and the information returned (company, amount, round type, investors, date), distinguishing it from siblings like enrich_company or search_linkedin_jobs.

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 mentions optional filters and a look-back window, providing some usage context. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or state when to prefer this over other company data tools, lacking clear when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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