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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses substantial behavior: the tiered entitlement model (5 rows plus counts when unentitled), that contact values and decision-maker names are withheld, and that every answer reports withholdings in `entitlement` and `locked`. This is exactly the kind of access and data-suppression context an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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 row definition is front-loaded and information-dense, and most clauses earn their place by adding field or filter semantics. It is a very long run-on construction with a trailing promotional line about the paid plan, which slightly hurts readability but does not bury the core purpose.

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 correctly takes on the burden of describing the returned row structure and the entitlement-suppression behavior, and it covers filter/sort semantics for a 13-param tool. Minor gaps remain around pagination/ordering defaults (only `cursor` is schema-described), preventing a 5.

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 54%, but the description compensates by mapping the lower-documented filters (bucket, status, re_ups_only, first_time_only, since, sort) to their meaning and by clarifying that status values COMMITTED vs DISCLOSED_HOLDING carry different semantics. The dfx_id params are already well described in the schema, so a 4 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?

The description opens with a concrete definition: 'One row per line of a plan's own disclosure' and enumerates the returned fields (allocator, fund, manager, bucket, amount, status, vintage, etc.), making the resource and granularity unambiguous. It never explicitly names the sibling it is distinct from (get_commitments, search_vc_lp_commitments), so an agent must infer differentiation, keeping it below a 5.

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?

It lists the filterable dimensions and sort keys, which implies when the tool is useful, and adds semantic guardrails ('a target is never an actual', 'a disclosed holding is never an approval'). However, it never states when to prefer this over get_commitments or the LP-commitment sibling, so usage selection is left to inference.

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