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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is free. The description goes well beyond that by disclosing the entitlement gating: unentitled lists return only 5 rows plus locked.count/locked.by_type, records expose only the first 3 related names per section, and contact values and decision-maker names are never returned. It does not describe pagination semantics for cursor beyond the schema, but the access disclosure is unusually rich.

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?

Front-loads the resource and the row contents, then the trigger questions, then the exclusion and access terms. It is long, but nearly every clause carries load; the trailing plans/URL marketing sentence is the only filler.

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 explaining the return shape, and it does: it enumerates every row field (deal counts, sponsor-side counts, repeat sponsors, 6/12-month activity, first/last deal, verticals, states, role mix, top sponsor). It also documents the entitlement/locked response contract, which an agent needs to interpret results 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 description coverage is 80%, so most parameters (sort, cursor, active_since, sponsor_focused_only, vertical, state) are already documented in the schema. The description's family glosses ('legal = law firms', 'qoe = quality of earnings') largely restate the enum descriptions, so it adds little meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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 (rank) and resource (service providers on independent sponsor transactions) and enumerates the exact families covered, mapping each to its internal enum value. It explicitly distinguishes itself from rank_sponsor_capital, so an agent can separate it from its nearest sibling without reading either schema.

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 concrete trigger questions ('top 10 law firms by independent sponsor deal count', 'which QoE providers work with independent sponsors') and an explicit exclusion with the correct alternative ('Not for capital providers or lenders: use rank_sponsor_capital'). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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