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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses scope (which cohort types are browsable) and filter dimensions, but says nothing about pagination defaults, field semantics of the tier concept beyond what the schema already states, or availability guarantees. As a read-only browse tool the behavior is largely self-evident, so this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Three tight sentences. The usage directive is front-loaded ('START HERE'), scope is one clause, and the call-order guidance is the final sentence. No filler or redundant restatement.

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 7-param browse tool with no output schema, the description covers entry-point positioning, filter options, and downstream routing in one place. Nothing an agent needs to choose and call it correctly is missing; only the return shape is left unspecified, which is acceptable for a listings tool.

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 71% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description reinforces three key filters (kind, min_providers, tier) with the tier enum values in parentheses, mapping directly to schema params, but adds no meaning beyond the schema. The semantic payload is carried mostly by the input schema.

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 ('find... cohorts' as 'one browsable index' covering tags, industries, regions, areas and VC portfolios). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like find_tags, find_industries, and find_vcs by positioning itself as the aggregating entry point, and explicitly flags cohort_stats/cohort_rankings as follow-ups.

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?

Opens with 'START HERE for market-level questions,' giving clear entry-point positioning, and directs the agent to cohort_stats for distribution and cohort_rankings for the leaderboard. It stops short of explicitly stating when NOT to use it versus the individual find_tags/find_industries siblings, though the aggregated-index wording implies the distinction.

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