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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: it is FREE with no API key, the match set is 50,000+ funds, and crucially the result is counts only with no firm names or contacts. That masking behavior is the key trait an agent needs and is not derivable from structured fields.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: cost and eligibility lead, then mechanics, then parameters, then the escalation. Almost every clause earns its place, though the parameter enumeration could be tightened.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully characterizes the return (counts plus investor-type breakdown, no names) and explains the free/keyless access model. It falls short only on the three undocumented optional parameters.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It supplies the full asset_class enum (absent from the schema), explains target_raise_m units in USD millions, and covers the semantics of the core two parameters. However industry, geography, and ebitda_m are never explained, leaving three of five parameters undocumented.

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 verb and resource ('Runs DEALITHIC's matching engine against 50,000+ funds') and clarifies the output scope ('counts only: no firm names or contacts'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling request_intro that releases names and contacts.

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 an explicit trigger ('Use when someone wants to be connected with investors for a raise') and a follow-on rule naming the alternative ('If the result looks useful, offer request_intro to book a demo'). The when-to-use and the escalation path are both spelled out.

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