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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world. The description adds behavior the annotations don't: a fixed 12-month lookback with no filtering, deduplication to the latest filing per fund, and the exact per-row fields returned. It doesn't mention pagination or result-set size caps, which keeps it from a 5.

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 question it answers, then scope, then output shape, then the caveat. It is a long run-on sentence and the licensing tag ('Free, CC BY 4.0') is incidental, but almost every clause carries selection or interpretation value.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (total offering, amount sold, first-sale date, state, filing link) and the row grain. For a zero-parameter read tool, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret results.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description makes the absence of filtering explicit enough by fixing the window at 12 months and the grain at one row per fund, so an agent won't look for date or entity arguments.

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 question it answers ('who is raising private-equity continuation funds?') and a specific resource (Form D/D-A filings naming a continuation fund), with the row grain spelled out. The explicit scope limit ('Shows who is raising, not the size of the secondary market') lets an agent tell it apart from the many sibling dataset endpoints without opening the 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?

The implicit when-to-use is clear (researching continuation-fund formation), and the when-not is stated outright: it does not measure secondary-market size. It doesn't name an alternative tool among the siblings, but the siblings are unrelated datasets, so there is little routing ambiguity to resolve.

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