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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses free-tier truncation (first 5 rows, locked.count/locked.by_type), that contact values and decision-maker names are withheld as types/counts only, and that every answer reports what it withheld in `entitlement` and `locked`. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure for a read tool.

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 return-content inventory is front-loaded and informative, but the entitlement paragraph is repetitive ('never the rows', 'are never returned') and the closing marketing line with a plans URL is promotional filler for a tool-selection document.

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 carries the full burden of describing returns, and it does so comprehensively: per-entity-type contents, related relationships/events/evidence/cross-graph links, plus truncation and withholding semantics. An agent knows what it will and will not get 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 description coverage is 100% and there is a single required parameter, so the schema already documents the id format thoroughly. The description's 'Accepts dfx:vc: ids' adds nothing and is actually narrower than the schema, which accepts fo/isi/vc/pe/ria/al/pc/ref ids and bare UUIDs.

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 concrete verb+resource ('the full card for any entity on the venture graph') and enumerates what each entity type returns (firm with investments/co-investors/funds, person with board seats, fund amounts, portfolio company investors). It does not, however, distinguish itself from sibling getters like get_pe_firm, get_family_office, get_ria_firm or get_entity, which appear to do the analogous thing for other graphs.

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 explains access/entitlement tiers at length but never says when to choose this over a sibling such as search_vc_firms, get_entity, or find_vc_investors, nor what prerequisite (a dfx:vc id obtained elsewhere) is required. Usage is only inferable from 'Accepts dfx:vc: ids'.

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