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

Annotations already carry read-only and non-destructive signals, so the description adds useful behavioral/content context: 'all seven fund amounts kept apart and its lifecycle state', plus relationships, events, evidence, and cross-graph links. It does not contradict the annotations and does not need to repeat their safety profile.

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 main purpose is front-loaded and the parenthetical breakdown is dense but useful. The final 'Accepts dfx:vc: ids' sentence is short but redundant/conflicting with the schema, preventing a perfect score.

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 no-output-schema tool, the description does a good job enumerating the returned card sections and accepted id type. However, it leaves the input-scope mismatch unresolved and gives no guidance on behavior for invalid or non-venture ids.

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 covers the sole parameter thoroughly (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3, but the description asserts 'Accepts dfx:vc: ids' while the schema explicitly allows many graph id types. This contradicts rather than adds to the schema and could mislead an agent into rejecting valid inputs.

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?

The description states a clear verb and resource: it retrieves 'the full card for any entity on the venture graph' and enumerates firm, person, fund, and portfolio company. This goes beyond the name and title, though it does not explicitly contrast with search/get siblings or resolve the dfx:vc-only scope.

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 implies usage when an agent has a dfx:vc id and needs the full entity card, and enumerates what that card contains. It never names alternatives or gives a when-not-to-use condition, which matters given the large sibling set of singular getters and search tools.

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