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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: results are not paired or ranked, company-to-sponsor pairs are withdrawn, first-time capital providers are not recommended, and every row carries a basis label (observed_behaviour, computed_match, observed_investments, derived). This gives an agent useful expectations about output semantics and limitations.

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 dense and front-loaded, opening with the core 'Investors for a company or described opportunity' framing. Every sentence adds distinct information: investor types, exclusion criteria, and row basis. It is long but not bloated; a slightly more structured layout could improve scannability, but nothing is wasted.

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 12-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main use cases, result types, output row semantics, and a key exclusion (no first-time capital providers). It does not explain all optional parameters and does not explicitly differentiate from inverse siblings like find_opportunities_for_capital, but the core information needed to invoke the tool correctly is present.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate. It does map several parameters (sector, state, deal_size_usd, stage, control) to the concept of a 'described opportunity' and partially explains investor_types via the listed investor categories. However, it leaves other parameters unexplained: vertical, asset_class, check_size_usd, sponsor_involved, and limit. The compensation is partial, not complete.

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 states the exact purpose: find investors for either a company (dfx_id) or a described opportunity (sector, state, deal size, stage, control). It enumerates the investor types returned and distinguishes itself from siblings by noting that sponsors are 'listed, not paired or ranked' and that company-to-sponsor pairs are withdrawn. This makes the tool's job unambiguous.

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 context for when to use the tool: when you need investors for a company or an opportunity described by sector/state/deal size/stage/control. It explains which investor types appear and in what circumstances, such as venture firms 'when the opportunity is venture-shaped.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the guidance is concrete enough to route an agent correctly.

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