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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent safety profile, and the description adds a great deal beyond them: entitlement gating behavior (list returns first 5 rows plus locked.count/locked.by_type, never full rows), record-level truncation to 3 related names per section, hard exclusions (contact values and decision-maker names never returned, only types/counts), and that every response reports what was withheld via `entitlement` and `locked`. That is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent must know 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?

Purpose is front-loaded, which is good, but the description is a dense run-on sentence stuffed with parentheticals, followed by a long ACCESS block that is part behavioral disclosure and part promotional copy ending in a pricing URL ('7 days free at https://dfxintel.com/data-factory/plans'). The entitlement explanation earns its place; the sales pitch does 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?

There is no output schema, so the description has to describe return shape, and it does reasonably well (list vs. record behavior, locked counts, per-section name truncation, entitlement metadata). It stops short of describing the exact field set or grain of the reporting tape, but an agent can call it correctly.

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 dfx_id parameter is fully specified in the schema (format dfx:pe:<uuid> plus the search tools that produce it). The description adds no further syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource (retrieve one PE fund) and enumerates the payload: manager, vintage and basis, per-amount bases, Form ADV reporting tape, LP commitments, relationships, events and evidence. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_pe_firm ('use get_pe_firm for the manager') and from the search tools by declaring it 'refuses an id that is not a fund'.

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?

Gives clear routing guidance: use get_pe_firm for the manager, and the id must be a real fund id (reinforced by the schema's note that ids come from search_pe_firms/search_pe_funds). It does not, however, state when to prefer a search_* tool over this one or what to do on a refused id.

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