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

Annotations only cover read-only/idempotent safety; the description adds substantial unique behavior: the derived (never-filed) nature and same-name-same-state inference, the exact entitlement gating (first 5 rows plus locked counts, no contact values or decision-maker names), and the `entitlement`/`locked` disclosure fields. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context the structured fields cannot convey.

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 core definition, then filters, then use cases, then access – a logical order. It is dense and long, and the trailing plan/URL sentence is promotional, but each block carries distinct 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 complex derived-signal tool with 9 params, no output schema, and an entitlement gate, the description covers derivation logic, filters, and the shape of returned/locked data. It never states a concrete result schema, but the access paragraph substitutes well enough for a truncated-output description.

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 33%, so the description must compensate, and it does clarify `since` (the NEW company's first Form D) and the intent of `prior_venture_backed_only` and sector words. However it leaves `limit`, `geography`, and `within_days` unexplained, so the compensation is partial rather than 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 precise verb+resource and mechanism: people named as executive officer on Form D filings of two or more operating companies, with the derived identity logic spelled out. An agent can immediately distinguish this from sibling search_people or search_vc_financings because it names the specific signal (repeat founders) and its source (Form D).

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 trigger phrases ('repeat founders who recently started companies', 'serial entrepreneurs raising again') and enumerates the filter dimensions (since, state/city, sector, prior_venture_backed_only). It stops short of naming an alternative tool or when-not-to-use conditions, so it is strong but not complete routing guidance.

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