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

Annotations cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: exactly what is withheld under the free tier (first 5 rows, locked counts, never contact values or decision-maker names), the `entitlement`/`locked` reporting, and the post-2024 reporting cutoff. This is exactly the extra behavioral detail 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?

Dense but well front-loaded: returned fields first, then filters, then access constraints. The closing marketing sentence and plan URL are the only padding, but they encode a real usage constraint for the free tier.

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 carries the burden of describing return values — and it does, listing every fund field plus the custodian rows. Combined with the entitlement rules and data cutoff, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret results correctly.

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 55%, and the description compensates by clarifying the high-value filters: adviser id vs CRD, gross asset value meaning ('reported gross assets, NOT fund size or commitments'), status semantics, and include_custodians behavior. It does not explain sort, limit, or cursor, so it falls just 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?

Names a specific resource (private funds from Form ADV Schedule D 7.B.(1)) and enumerates the returned fields, so it is immediately distinguishable from siblings like search_pe_funds, search_vc_funds, or get_ria_firm. An agent can tell what it retrieves and at what granularity without opening the schema.

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 concrete filter dimensions (adviser dfx id or CRD, name, type, status, state, Form D number, min gross assets) and a temporal caveat ('fund reporting after 2024-12-31 is roster counts only'), which frames when it is useful. It never names an alternative tool or a when-not condition, so it stops short of a 5.

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