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

Annotations only declare read-only/idempotent/non-destructive; the description goes far beyond that, spelling out the entitlement model (first 5 rows in full vs locked.count/locked.by_type), the fields never returned (contact values, decision-maker names), and the `entitlement`/`locked` disclosure fields. This is exactly the behavioral disclosure the annotations cannot carry.

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?

Purpose, return fields, filters and access rules are front-loaded in a logical order, but the ACCESS block is long and ends with a promotional plan URL ('7 days free at...'), which consumes space without helping an agent invoke the tool correctly.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly takes on the burden of listing returned fields and the entitlement/withholding behavior. Sort and limit semantics go unexplained, but for a read-only search tool the essentials are covered.

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?

With only ~57% schema description coverage and 7 params, the description compensates by naming the filterable dimensions (query, state, sector, min_add_ons_24m, owner_dfx_id) and describing returned metrics. It does not explain sort semantics or the 25-row limit behavior, so it stops short of full coverage.

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 gives a precise verb+resource and defines the concept ('a sponsor's platform investment, or a company that has made add-ons'), then enumerates the specific fields returned. It is distinguishable from adjacent tools, explicitly naming find_pe_addons_for_platform as the follow-up consumer of the dfx:pe: ids.

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 states the available filter dimensions (name, state, industry text, min add-ons in 24 months, owner firm) and points to the sibling that consumes its ids, which gives clear usage context. It does not, however, state when to prefer this over search_pe_firms or get_sponsor_portfolio, so exclusions are absent.

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