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

Annotations only cover the read-only/idempotent safety profile, and the description goes well beyond them: it details entitlement gating (first 5 rows in full plus locked.count and locked.by_type without a paid plan), that contact values and decision-maker names are never returned, and that every answer reports what was withheld via `entitlement` and `locked`.

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 definition is front-loaded and information-dense, but the opening sentence is a run-on packing definition, dating method, comparison basis, and caveats together, and the trailing plan/promo URL adds promotional weight beyond pure tool guidance.

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 complex, entitlement-gated search with no output schema, the description covers the access model, locked-field semantics, and withheld data well. The remaining gap is the undocumented parameters, which no schema coverage fills.

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 17% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains since, sector, and fund number conceptually, but leaves limit, within_days, max_sequence, and min_sequence undescribed and does not clarify the 'fund number' ↔ sequence mapping. Baseline-plus for partial compensation.

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 precise resource (a venture manager's next numbered fund, Fund N+1 after Fund N) and the discriminating detail (dated by first Form D, compared against the prior fund on a stated basis). This clearly separates it from siblings like search_vc_funds, search_vc_new_funds, and search_vc_emerging_managers.

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 explicit trigger questions ('which comparable managers recently launched another fund', 'who is raising their next fund') and names the filter dimensions. It stops short of naming the sibling alternatives (e.g., search_vc_new_funds) that an agent should choose between, so it falls below the top bar.

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