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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description adds substantial behavior: entitlement gating (first 5 rows in full plus locked.count/locked.by_type), per-record truncation rules, and hard exclusions for contact values and decision-maker names. It even says where the withholding is reported (entitlement, locked), which an agent cannot infer from annotations.

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?

Output list is front-loaded and dense, but the ALL-CAPS run-on enumeration plus the closing promotional sentence ('7 days free at https://...') bloat it. The access/withholding rules earn their place; the upsell and shouting do not.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so: sections, confidence label, and entitlement/locked withholding. Remaining gaps are minor, e.g. what a 'computed match' or confidence label actually looks like.

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% so the ID formats are already documented, but the description adds a genuine semantic fact the schema does not convey: the two IDs are order-independent ('either order'), which matters for a two-positional-ID tool. No further parameter nuance is added.

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 (explain a match between an investor and an opportunity) and enumerates the exact output sections: reasons, blockers, observations, comparable history, relationships, recent events, computed match, confidence. This is far more specific than the generic get_*/find_* siblings, and 'Facts, not a score' separates it from rank_* 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?

It tells the agent the expected input pairing ('an investor and an opportunity (either order)') but never states when to reach for this versus relationship_path, find_opportunities_for_capital, or get_capital_paths. Usage is implied by the input shape rather than stated.

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