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

The annotations already include readOnlyHint=true, making the read-only nature clear. The description adds 'free' (no cost) and mentions the ordering (newest first) and optional search term, which are behavioral details beyond the annotations. No contradiction is present.

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 with no wasted words. Every sentence adds value: first sentence describes what the tool does, second sentence tells when to use it and mentions the search filter. Highly efficient.

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?

Given the tool is a simple list with an output schema, two parameters, and clear annotations, the description is completely adequate. It covers purpose, usage, behavioral aspects, and parameter hinting, leaving no gaps for an AI agent to misunderstand.

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%, so the input schema already documents both parameters (limit and search) with descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, thus the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the tool lists ideas owned by the user, including specific fields (title, VC score, creation date) and ordering (newest first). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_ideas (which searches broadly) and get_portfolio (which likely has a different view).

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 explains exactly when to use this tool: to discover ideaId values for other tools or to get a quick portfolio snapshot. It explicitly states it is read-only and free, and mentions the optional search parameter for narrowing results, providing clear usage context.

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