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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description is not required to prove safety. It adds useful behavioral context beyond that: summary returns lean discovery records plus *_count for dropped sections, full return inlines the whole portfolio, and the call is priced as B1 under Understanding/Influence. There is no contradiction with the read-only annotation.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states what the tool returns, then the key view option, then pricing and plan context. Every sentence earns its place, and the 'UNDERSTANDING' label plus pricing link are terse rather than bloated.

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 simple get-by-slug tool with read-only annotations, the description covers the main return payload, the full-view option, and commercial context. It omits explicit notes on not-found behavior or slug requirements, but the tool is simple enough that this is a minor gap rather than a blocking ambiguity.

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?

The schema already documents view and context well, and the description reinforces view=full behavior. However, the required slug parameter has no schema description, and the main description does not clarify slug format or accepted values. Schema coverage is 67%, and the description only partially compensates for the remaining gap.

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 names a specific resource — 'One VC firm' — and enumerates the returned content: identity, fund facts, and portfolio summary with totals, band distribution, and average rating. It also distinguishes the summary vs full views via 'Pass view=full to inline the whole portfolio,' and the schema further routes full-record needs to get_api / get_provider. This is enough for an agent to know exactly what get_vc does and how it differs from nearby tools.

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 gives clear guidance on when to use the tool and how to choose between summary and full views. It also steers users toward get_api / get_provider for single-entity full-record retrieval in the view parameter description. It does not explicitly contrast get_vc with find_vcs, but the by-slug lookup and 'One VC firm' framing make the intended context clear.

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