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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds substantial beyond-annotation context: the tool refuses non-fund ids, clarifies that adv_gross_asset_value is reported gross assets rather than fund size or dry powder, and notes LP commitments are only included where disclosed.

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?

One dense, front-loaded sentence conveys the full data scope, followed by one sentence covering refusal behavior and the sibling alternative. Every item earns its place and there is no repetition of schema content.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description thoroughly enumerates content categories, data semantics, caveats, and sibling routing. An agent has enough context to call it correctly and interpret what comes back.

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% with a precise dfx_id format and source tools listed. The description adds the acceptance constraint that the id must be a fund and reinforces the manager-vs-fund distinction, slightly extending the schema's meaning.

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?

Description opens with 'One fund:' and enumerates exactly what is returned: manager, vintage, basis, Form ADV reporting tape, LP commitments, relationships, events and evidence. It also distinguishes itself from get_pe_firm by explicitly refusing non-fund ids, making tool selection 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?

It clearly frames the use case as retrieving a single private equity fund in full. It states an explicit exclusion ('Refuses an id that is not a fund') and routes manager lookups to 'get_pe_firm', naming the relevant sibling alternative.

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