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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the entitlement model: without a paid plan, lists return only the first 5 rows plus locked.count and locked.by_type, records name subjects and first 3 related names, and contact values/decision-maker names are never returned. It also explains that entitlements are surfaced in `entitlement` and `locked` fields. This is rich behavioral context the annotations cannot provide.

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 core definition and filter list are front-loaded and information-dense. The access paragraph is long but material to correct invocation; the trailing promotional URL and free-trial pitch are the one part that does not earn its place, slightly diluting conciseness.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description specifies the return contents (score, sector evidence, fund count, first vintage) and the entitlement/locked behavior that shapes responses. Nothing essential for calling the tool correctly appears to be missing.

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?

With 50% schema coverage and 6 parameters, the description compensates by clarifying the semantics of the distinguishing filters: launched_since (a fund launched since a date) and new_adviser_since (first appearance on the SEC adviser roster since a date), plus sector/state/city filtering. Only `limit` is left undocumented, so coverage is good but not complete.

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 (search) and resource (venture managers) with a precise inclusion criterion (emerging-manager score >= 0.5, defined by few funds, recent first vintage, small reported assets). It also enumerates the returned fields, distinguishing it clearly from siblings like search_vc_firms or search_vc_investors.

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?

Provides concrete example queries ('emerging managers investing in climate', 'emerging managers that launched funds this quarter', 'new venture managers in Massachusetts') that make the intended usage explicit. It does not, however, name an alternative tool or state when NOT to use this one versus sibling manager searches.

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