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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the entitlement-gated response shape (first 5 rows in full plus locked.count/locked.by_type), the guarantee that contact values and decision-maker names are never returned, and that every answer reports what it withheld via `entitlement` and `locked`.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the field list and fingerprint lead, then usage, then access rules. Every sentence carries information, though the closing plan promotion is promotional filler rather than tool-relevant guidance.

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 fully compensates by describing the return payload (holdings, sector/state/control counts, current totals) and the gating. Combined with rich annotations, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool 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 only 50%, so the description must carry weight, and it does for the two key inputs: it specifies the dfx id forms (dfx:pe:/dfx:isi:) and the identity-layer linkage, and the name alternative. The status and limit parameters are covered only implicitly by '(current and exited)', leaving the enum and cap undocumented in prose.

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 precise verb and resource (a sponsor's current and exited portfolio holdings), enumerates the returned fields, and names the specific scenario it answers ('which companies fit this sponsor's strategy'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_pe_firm or search_sponsor_deals.

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?

Explicitly frames itself as 'the first read' and prescribes ordering ('read what it owns before searching for lookalikes'). This gives clear context for when to reach for it. It stops short of naming the specific alternative sibling tools to use afterward, so it is not a full 5.

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