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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and partially meets it: it discloses that each result 'carries a network-matched, rated portfolio graph' and specifies the default sort. It does not cover output shape, pagination behavior, or what the 'Understanding plan' entails, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 tightly packed: purpose, result payload, and sorting are each stated in a single clause with no fluff. The 'Understanding plan' tag is brief and adds plan context without bloating the text.

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 read-only search tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate for basic invocation: criteria, sort, and result contents are covered. However, absence of alternatives/routing, output format, and plan/tier explanation leaves the complete picture slightly out of reach.

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 57%, and the description adds useful mapping between the search criteria ('name, thesis tags, or category') and parameters, plus the default sort option. Page, limit, and context are left for the schema to carry, which is partially acceptable but not fully compensated at this coverage level.

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 opens with a concrete action and target: 'Find venture-capital firms by name, thesis tags, or category,' which clearly identifies the resource and filtering criteria. It does not explicitly differentiate from overlapping siblings like find_investors or get_vc, so it misses the top mark.

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?

No guidance is given about when to prefer find_vcs over the many find_* siblings or get_vc, nor are exclusions or prerequisites stated. The 'Understanding plan' label hints at a plan restriction, but its implications are never explained.

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