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

Annotations already establish the safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile. With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the card fields and the dfx:fo: id format, plus disclosing the exclusion of people and individual investments. It stops short of describing pagination or limit behavior.

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?

It is dense but front-loaded: card contents first, then filters, then the return id convention, then the exclusion. The card-field enumeration is long but earns its place given the absent output schema; there is no 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?

For a 14-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives an adequate picture of returns and filters but leaves several filter parameters (cursor, sort, limit, asset_class) unexplained and does not address pagination. It is workable but not complete.

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 43% across 14 parameters, so the description should compensate, and it partly does by naming the filterable axes (state, sector, direct investing, recent activity, AUM). But it omits city, sort, class, limit, cursor, query, asset_class, has_real_estate, and has_sponsor_relationships, leaving roughly half the parameters documented only in the schema.

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 names the resource (US family offices) and specifies exactly what the tool returns — compact cards with class/confidence, direct-investing flag, sectors, check size, deployment, and relationship counts. It also implicitly separates itself from siblings by stating 'People and individual investments are not on these cards,' though it never names the alternative tools.

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 usable filters (state, sector, direct investing, recent activity, AUM) and draws one negative boundary by excluding people and individual investments, which hints at routing. However, it never names alternatives such as search_family_office_investments, search_people, or get_family_office, so the when-to-use guidance stays implied rather than explicit.

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