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

Beyond readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses concrete behavior: the 200-largest-fund scope, that links are identifier matches only, that precision by basis is not yet sampled, and that a name is never a basis. This materially improves the agent's ability to trust and interpret results.

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 a single dense paragraph with multiple embedded clauses, making it harder to scan. Every sentence adds content, but the structure could be broken up for readability.

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 does a good job explaining the output concept (links, bases, CRD/CIK, SEC fund id), the input forms, and a key limit (200 funds). It leaves some ambiguity about the exact result shape (e.g., whether it's a list of entities) but is adequate for correct invocation.

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 schema describes dfx_id as an RIA graph id or CRD; the description reinforces and expands this by explaining accepted forms (dfx:ria:<uuid> from search_ria, resolve_name or search_entities) and the firm CRD. With 50% schema coverage, this compensation is useful, though 'limit' semantics are only indirectly addressed via the 200-fund check.

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 function: returns identifier-based links from one RIA firm/fund to PE/VC/FO/sponsor graph entities, with the basis printed per link. The 'Answers...' sentence gives the concrete question it resolves, which distinguishes it from generic get_ria_firm or search tools.

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?

Clearly scopes to 'one RIA firm (or one private fund)' and specifies accepted inputs (dfx:ria id or CRD). However, it doesn't name alternative tools or say when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions relative to siblings.

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