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

Annotations already declare a safe read (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), but the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the entitlement gating in detail (first 5 rows plus locked.count/locked.by_type without a plan, records truncated to subject + first 3 related names, contact values and decision-maker names never returned, only types and counts), and says every response reports withholding via `entitlement` and `locked`. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure.

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?

It is dense and front-loaded: purpose, row contents, counts, use cases, then access rules. Most sentences earn their place, though it is delivered as one long run-on and closes with a promotional plan/URL line that is tangential to invoking the tool.

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 10-parameter tool with no output schema and thin schema descriptions, the description compensates well on the return shape (row fields, coverage.total first) and access/entitlement behavior. The remaining gap is the un-documented scope filters (geography, within_days, min_size_usd, city, limit), which an agent would have to guess at.

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 20% across 10 parameters. The description does add real meaning to the two enum parameters by spelling out the roles (administrator, auditor, custodian, placement agent) and the trigger concepts (new fund Form D, next numbered funds, provider changed, growing manager, new manager). However, it says nothing about geography, within_days, min_size_usd, city, or limit, leaving half the filters undocumented anywhere.

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?

The description names a specific verb (call list) and resource (venture funds with service-provider triggers), enumerating exactly which triggers and roles qualify. It explicitly distinguishes itself from search_vc_opportunities(provider_type=law) for fund counsel, so an agent can route between them without opening either 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 gives concrete when-to-use queries ('new venture funds that may need administrators', 'which venture funds changed auditors') and states the alternative route for a different case (fund counsel -> search_vc_opportunities with provider_type=law). When and when-not are both covered explicitly.

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