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

Annotations already indicate readOnly and openWorld hints. The description adds valuable behavioral details: returns are EUR-normalized at ECB rate, ordered newest first, and paginated via nextCursor. It also notes data is cited. These go beyond the annotations and help predict behavior.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then adding key behavioral details. Every word contributes value with no redundancy or 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 search tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, currency normalization, ordering, and pagination. It does not list return fields, but the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of a search result make this acceptable. The description is sufficient to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds semantic context for parameters: 'EUR-normalized' clarifies minAmountEur and currency semantics, and 'newest first with nextCursor' explains the 'after' parameter and ordering. This extra context raises the score above baseline.

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 searches European tech funding rounds, with specific scope (European, tech) and resource (rounds). It also specifies currency normalization and ordering, which distinguishes it from sibling search tools like search_exits and search_investors.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (searching funding rounds) and the scope makes alternatives obvious (exits, investors, companies). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tool names and the specific resource make the usage context clear.

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