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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the entitlement gating model (first 5 rows in full plus locked.count/locked.by_type, record names subject and 3 related names per section), that contact values and decision-maker names are suppressed to types and counts, and that entitlement/locked fields report what was withheld. This is exactly the kind of paywall, redaction, and return-shape behavior an agent needs before calling.

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 content is largely substantive, but it is packed into one enormous run-on sentence that is not front-loaded: the reader must reach the middle to learn what the card actually contains. The enumeration is dense and could be grouped or bulleted, so structure is a clear weakness even though little is truly 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does so exhaustively: it lists every section returned, the entitlement behavior, the locked/withheld reporting, and the cross-graph same_as links. For a complex, high-fanout entity tool, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly appears to be missing.

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% and the single parameter is well documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying that the id is polymorphic (person, fund, or company) and that the returned card matches that subject, which is meaning beyond the schema's simpler 'private equity graph id' phrasing.

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 (retrieve the full card for a private equity firm) and enumerates the exact contents: identity, classification, funds, team, portfolio, counterparties, scores, events, and same_as links. It also carves out a distinct scope from siblings by naming the family office, sponsor, and venture graphs it links to, so an agent can tell it apart from get_family_office, get_pe_fund, or search_pe_firms.

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 notes it also accepts a dfx:pe person, fund, or company id, which is a partial usage hint, and implies it is the single-entity counterpart to the search_ tools. But it never states when to use this versus search_pe_firms, get_pe_fund, or get_sponsor_portfolio, nor any prerequisites for choosing it. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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