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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It usefully clarifies that the result includes public aggregate copy stats and conditionally the caller's own copy, but it does not mention read-only safety, auth requirements, error behavior, or rate limits—gaps partially mitigated by the get_ prefix and the output schema.

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 definition is two short sentences plus an args line, with the core purpose front-loaded. The args line is mildly redundant but not verbose, and every sentence serves the small scope of the tool.

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?

Given one parameter and an existing output schema, the description adequately summarizes what data is returned, including the public/personal split. However, it omits permissions, null/omitted behavior when the caller has no copy, and error cases, leaving meaningful context gaps.

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 0% for the single fund_id integer, and the description merely restates 'The fund's ID' without adding format, source, or validation details. It provides essentially no meaning beyond the schema's own 'Fund Id' title.

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-resource pair (get_fund_copy_state) and a clear scope: public copy stats (active/all-time copiers) plus the caller's own copy if present. It distinguishes public versus personal data, but does not name or contrast siblings such as get_follow_state or list_my_copies, keeping it below a 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?

No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives are provided. The conditional 'if you have one' hints at personal context but leaves the agent to infer when this tool should be chosen over list_my_copies, get_follow_state, or get_fund_analytics.

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