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

Annotations already cover the safe-read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), yet the description adds substantial behavioral context they cannot convey: the exact entitlement model (first 5 rows plus locked counts by type without a paid plan, never the rows), what is never returned (contact values, decision-maker names), and the entitlement/locked fields on every answer. This is rich disclosure well beyond structured metadata.

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 purpose and returned fields, then the access/entitlement behavior, which is genuinely useful. The closing marketing line ("7 days free at...") and the redundant "Every answer says what it withheld in entitlement and locked" sentence cost a point but do not obscure the core.

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, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by listing the fields returned and the entitlement/locked fields, plus the full access model. It is nearly complete for a 9-param optional-filter search; only sort/limit/query semantics are left unaddressed.

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 only 33% across 9 parameters. The description partly compensates by enumerating the filters (state, type, sector text, SBIC status, fund size) and noting that fund size and average investment are "kept apart," but sort, limit, query and making_new_investments receive no added meaning. Partial compensation warrants a 3.

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 verb and resource (search capital providers that fund independent sponsors) and enumerates the entity types and returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what it will get. It does not explicitly name or route away from near siblings like search_independent_sponsors or rank_sponsor_capital, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

"Filter by state, type, sector text, SBIC status or fund size" implies when the filters are relevant, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative to route to. Usage is left to inference from the purpose sentence.

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