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

Substantial behavioral disclosure beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations: entitlement limits (first 5 rows full, locked.count and locked.by_type for the rest), record truncation to the subject plus 3 related names per section, permanent withholding of contact values and decision-maker names, the entitlement and locked fields in every answer, the ADV tape coverage window starting 2011, the caution that a 2011-2012 first report is a first sighting not a formation, the definition of gross asset value, and the feeder double-counting caution. This is exactly the kind of context 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?

The content is front-loaded with the field enumeration and the key access caveat, but it is one dense run-on paragraph that mixes data-field listing, definitions, filters, coverage caveats, and entitlement rules. It is information-rich rather than padded, yet the lack of structure makes it harder to scan than it needs to be.

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 19-parameter tool with 0% output schema, the description covers the unusual definitions (gross asset value, vintage basis, coverage window), the entitlement withheld-data behavior, and the feeder rule. The main gap is the unexplained half of the parameters; otherwise an agent has enough to call the tool without surprising failures.

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 47%, so the description must compensate and partially does: it explains that query takes a name, an 805- fund id, or an 021- Form D number, and it defines lifecycle_state RAISING/FORMING as the live fundraising read plus the feeder exclusion rule. However, roughly half the parameters (sort, limit, state, cursor, manager_crd, min_gav_usd, vintage fields, first_reported fields, with_public_lps, include_dropped) receive no explanation in the description, so the gap is only partly filled.

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 by specifying the verb and resource precisely: vehicles sworn as Real Estate Funds by SEC fund id. It enumerates the returned data fields, which makes the purpose concrete, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closely named sibling get_re_fund_vehicle or search_re_fund_managers, leaving an agent to infer that this is the search/list variant.

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?

Usage is implied through the query semantics and the note that lifecycle_state RAISING or FORMING is the live fundraising read, plus the feeder exclusion default. There is no explicit when-to-use versus sibling tools like get_re_fund_vehicle or search_re_fund_managers, so an agent must infer the search/list role.

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