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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower, yet the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the entitlement model (first 5 rows plus locked.count/by_type without a paid plan, never the rows), the permanent withholding of contact values and decision-maker names, and the `entitlement`/`locked` response fields. This is exactly the kind of gating and data-withholding context an agent needs before calling.

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-loaded with the purpose, then the filter list, then the ACCESS caveat — a logical order with no filler. The entitlement sentence is dense but every clause (row caps, counts, withheld contact data, response fields) carries distinct operational information.

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 7-parameter, output-schema-less search tool, the description supplies what the structured data cannot: entitlement-gated return behavior, the shape of partial results, and the fields that signal withholding. An agent has enough to call it and to interpret the response without additional documentation.

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 57%, so the schema documents some but not all parameters (e.g. since and txn_type carry no inline description). The description compensates by naming the filter dimensions the caller can use, mapping them to the query/state/txn_type/since parameters, though it adds no format or syntax detail beyond that.

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 the specific resource (announced acquisitions, recapitalisations and exits by independent sponsors) and enumerates the returned facets (sponsor, target, dates, EV range, structure, parties, source), which cleanly separates it from siblings like search_pe_transactions and search_isi_opportunities. An agent can identify the tool 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?

It lists the filterable dimensions (sponsor, target, type, state, since-date, name text) which implies how to narrow a query, but never states when this tool should be chosen over adjacent ones such as search_pe_transactions or search_isi_opportunities, nor any exclusion conditions.

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