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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds substantial context beyond that: the exact locked-row behavior (first 5 rows, count of the rest), that contact values and decision-maker names are never returned, and the entitlement/locked response fields.

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 parameter behavior, which is good, but the ACCESS block is long and includes a promotional URL and plan pitch that dilutes the definition. Reasonably structured but not tight.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, key parameter semantics, example queries, and the access/entitlement model. The main gap is lack of explicit sibling differentiation.

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 only 50%. The description meaningfully explains group_by=lp ranking, max_fund_number (first or second fund), and emerging_only, adding value over the schema. However, roughly half the parameters remain undocumented in both places, so it only partially compensates.

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: disclosed LP commitments to venture funds from LPs' own public reports. Clear enough to distinguish the domain, but it does not explicitly name the closely related siblings (search_allocator_commitments, get_commitments) to route the agent.

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 explicit example queries ('LPs that back first-time venture managers', 'which allocators made venture commitments recently', 'who are this fund's LPs'), which give clear usage context. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over the near-identical sibling tools.

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