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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, non-open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond them: results are limited to 'verified active' investors only, and returned URLs must be preserved exactly, which is a behavioral constraint an agent would otherwise violate.

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 action and the key, with the URL-preservation caveat placed after. 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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is unnecessary, and the annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers the entity scope and the one critical constraint; only failure behavior (e.g., missing/invalid slug or unverified investor) is left unstated.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the slug and its origin. The description adds no format, validation, or edge-case detail about the slug beyond the word 'by slug', so the 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 and resource (get one investor's public details) plus a retrieval key (slug), which clearly separates it from the plural siblings like search_investors. The scope qualifiers 'verified active AI investor' further narrow what will come back, though the description never names search_investors as the counterpart.

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: an agent can infer this is the detail lookup that follows a search. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, and the dependency on a slug from search_investors appears only in the schema, not the description.

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