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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description earns credit by disclosing output semantics the annotations cannot: amounts are in their own currency, *_home fields are converted to the company currency, and those fields are null when no FX rate exists. It stops short of stating pagination or result-size 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?

Two sentences with no filler. The scope and content list come first, then the currency caveat that an agent would otherwise get wrong. Every clause carries information.

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 no output schema, the description must carry the return shape, and it does — listing the sections and the currency-conversion rule. It is complete enough to call correctly and interpret the response, though it says nothing about size limits or whether results can be filtered or paginated.

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 coverage is 100% — the single 'company' parameter already documents name-or-id, 'Personal', 'all', and the omit-for-all behavior. The description adds only the phrase 'per company', which is consistent with the schema but adds no new syntax or constraint.

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 resource (fully diluted cap table) and enumerates the exact contents returned: holders, share classes, SAFEs/notes, option pool, RSUs, warrants, last 409A. No sibling tool overlaps this domain, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated, which holds it just below 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no alternative named. The closest it comes is mentioning 'per company', but that reads as scope, not guidance; the agent must infer this is the tool for equity ownership questions.

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