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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful output behavior: computed matches with reasons and blockers, transition-signal companies, sponsors seeking capital, raising companies, and the behavior it reasoned from. No contradiction with 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?

The audience and core behavior are front-loaded, and each clause contributes a distinct output category or constraint. However, the first sentence is long and run-on, and the 'then' sequence could be misinterpreted as temporal ordering rather than additional categories.

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 explains what is returned: matches with reasons/blockers, transition-signal companies, sponsors seeking capital, raising companies, and the behavior reasoned from. It stops short of describing result shape, pagination, or how limit applies, but the key essentials for a read-only discovery tool are 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?

The description adds no parameter-level meaning. The schema documents dfx_id's accepted ID formats well, and limit has numeric bounds/default, but with 50% schema coverage the description does not compensate for the limit parameter's missing semantic description. Still, the schema provides enough for correct invocation.

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 clearly states the tool's direction: for an investor entity, return opportunities DFX knows that fit the entity's demonstrated behavior, with specific output categories. It is distinguishable from inverse sibling tools like find_capital_for_opportunity and find_pe_buyers_for_company, though it does not explicitly name a sibling or alternative.

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 opening 'For a family office, sponsor, capital provider or venture firm' gives an explicit audience and use context, reinforced by dfx_id's accepted graph types. It does not explicitly explain when to prefer this tool over alternatives or state exclusions, but the intended use case is clear enough for correct selection.

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