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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds real value beyond that: it signals that only 'public' details are returned and gives an unusual output-handling instruction ('Preserve returned URLs exactly'), which usefully warns the agent not to rewrite returned links.

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 tight sentences, with the core identification clause front-loaded and the output-handling constraint second. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering the read-only safety profile, the description need not explain return values, and it correctly stays brief. It is nearly complete for a one-parameter lookup, though it omits any mention of behavior when the ID does not exist (error/empty result).

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 the single parameter is fully documented in the schema (including that it is 'returned by search_fundraises'). The description only echoes the 'by ID' idea and adds no format or range detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get'), resource ('public details for one AI company fundraising round'), and scoping key ('by ID'), which clearly distinguishes it from search_fundraises. The sibling differentiation is achieved only implicitly through 'by ID' rather than by naming the search tool, but an agent can still tell what this does.

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 phrase 'by ID' implies the tool is a single-record lookup that follows a search, which is adequate implied usage. However, no explicit when-to-use guidance or prerequisite (that the ID must come from search_fundraises) is stated in the description itself — that context lives only in the schema parameter description.

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