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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: it scopes the response to 'public details' and gives an output-handling instruction, 'Preserve returned URLs exactly,' which the annotations do not convey.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and no filler. The trailing URL-preservation instruction is a distinct, actionable rule that earns its place.

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?

This is a simple single-parameter read tool with an output schema, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description covers what is fetched and one output caveat; only explicit routing to search_fundraises for the ID is missing.

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 'id' parameter is fully documented by the schema as the numeric fundraise ID from search_fundraises. The description adds only 'by ID', which restates rather than extends 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?

The description names a specific verb (Get) and resource (one AI company fundraising round by ID) and clarifies what content is returned: public details plus participating investors. It does not explicitly contrast itself with search_fundraises or other get_* siblings, relying on the resource noun alone to differentiate.

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'by ID', which suggests an ID must first be obtained elsewhere; the schema description supplies the search_fundraises link, not the description. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance in the description itself.

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