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

Adds substantial context beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations: the free-tier truncation model (first 5 rows plus locked.count/by_type), the suppression of contact values and decision-maker names, the entitlement/locked disclosure on every answer, and an explicit backtest caveat (0.94x base rate) warning against predictive framing. This is exactly the behavioral disclosure 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?

Front-loads what the tool returns, which is good, but then runs long with a dense backtest paragraph and a promotional pricing URL ('7 days free at https://dfxintel.com/...'). The entitlement detail is necessary; the marketing line is not, and the single-run-on structure makes it hard to scan.

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 and 12 parameters, the description does the heavy lifting: it describes returned fields, the dfx:isi: id format, and the entitlement/withholding contract. Only the filter parameters are underspecified, so it is largely complete for correct invocation.

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 33% across 12 params, so the description must compensate. It covers vertical/state/NAICS/size/min-opportunity filters and explains plan participants as a size proxy, but leaves city, sort, limit, query, record_status, and min/max_participants unexplained beyond the schema. Partial compensation justifies a mid score.

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 resource (US private companies with ownership-change filings) and enumerates the returned fields (vertical, participants, EBITDA band, rule scores), so an agent can tell it apart from the other search_* tools. It never names a sibling directly, but the 'ownership-change filings' scope is distinctive enough to be actionable.

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 filter guidance ('Filter by vertical, state, NAICS prefix, size and minimum opportunity') and a strong caveat about not treating scores as predictions, but never says when to prefer this over search_pending_ownership_changes, search_isi_opportunities, or search_opportunities. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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