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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds useful behavioral context by clarifying the tool reads unsaved/planning scenarios and does not record anything. This aligns with and reinforces the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

One tightly written sentence communicates the action, the object, the source, and the key side-effect absence. Every phrase earns its place, and the core behavior is front-loaded.

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 simple two-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and clear annotations, the description is complete enough. It states what is read, from where, and what is not modified, so an agent can correctly decide to invoke it.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for its two required parameters, and the description does not explain project_id or cap_table_id beyond the general phrase 'existing planning data.' With the description carrying the burden for parameter meaning, this is a meaningful gap, even though the parameter names are fairly self-explanatory.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('unsaved dilution scenarios from existing planning data'), and explicitly states the key non-effect ('without recording a financing event'). This clearly distinguishes it from tools that create or record cap table events.

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 description gives clear usage context: use this when you need to preview unsaved dilution scenarios from existing planning data and do not want to record a financing event. It does not explicitly name alternatives like cap_table.simulate_raise or state exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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