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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: sample-vs-live data paths keyed to mandate presence, per-result data-quality flags, identity masking via position references, withholding of granular financials until controlled disclosure and NDA, and the explicit statement that it contacts no one and creates no relationship. That last claim is consistent with readOnlyHint rather than contradicting it.

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?

Front-loads the trigger conditions, then data/identity behavior, then exclusions — a sensible order with no filler sentences. It is on the long side and the return-value inventory (fit score, band, reasons, data-quality note) partially duplicates the existing output schema.

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, yet the description still supplies what the schema cannot: the sampling/identity-protection regime and the mandate-on-file prerequisite. For a tool with 4 params, one enum, and a nominal read-only profile, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly or set user expectations 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 coverage is 100% and each parameter already carries a description, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description restates the filter axes (sector, geography, size, business model) and the 'do not add criteria' constraint, which mirrors the mandate field's schema text rather than adding new meaning.

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 plus the multiple framings of the same task ('find companies to acquire, buyers or investors for a business they may sell, or counterparties matching a stated mandate'), and narrows scope to 'technology or software'. An agent can tell this apart from siblings like get_valuation or get_deal_flow without opening their schemas.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use conditions and an explicit exclusion list ('Not for explaining M&A concepts, general market research, or finding companies with no expressed deal intent'). It also names the prerequisite that governs which data path runs: live mandate-specific matching requires a mandate on file, otherwise the public sample endpoint answers.

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